United States First Circuit

In a state law tort action over which the federal district court retained supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the plaintiffs' federal claims, the district court's grant of a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where: 1) the district court appropriately exercised its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the case; 2) the district court was correct to reject the plaintiffs' construction of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4)(C) and to refuse to admit a witness's deposition where it had found that he was available for live testimony; 3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' mid-trial request for a continuance so they could procure the witness's live testimony through a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum; and 4) there was no error in the allowance of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, absent sufficient evidence on the issue of breach of duty.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/09/2012
• Published 02/09/2012

Judges

• Howard

Court

• United States First Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Jeffrey D. Sowa, Marc DeSisto