WPCP g%KFn yv-NMP-@bàIDj( m++4P)*4RE;\O Z_^?|T ׭R Jhӂ\O"텃H#ÿB ;Emispɺ&x\0쨎}YP? E@F7֕s!  ]ٴ]I:jޅϧ6qPȏ D>ذ{EQ󹚟c"/UB'тzb 9_rqlc|][jK*7r>J4o@46qo9d&f5qM#Η u9t!լOO@pX/J[6l}Kf$zr'rO7 "enRsÝgvX**5~9a~Re= Xc_#b8{3Wj# % 0 D 0G U:& 0 ` U8E nT} N UN UF!^ gws4wEfa m U2 1 72{ 0c 0U 0; 0$ 0  0 0 0 0 0[ 0C/ 0r BI 0f 0:! 0 " 0" 0# 0l$ 01% 0@% 01& 0' 0' 0( 0o) 07* 0* 0+ 00{, 0<, 0, 0>- 0v- 0`Y. 0`. 0`/ 0`y/ 0`/ 0890 0q0 02C1 0u1 0:q2 0Y2 0_3 0 c3 0jm4 05 B*[7 D/7 D+7 07 D/c9 09 06`: 0: 0:; 0^; 0<6< 1er< 0N<U6%=U>[=U*=b= 1u= 72@>r>r>ky?7ACHHHHN,VPHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2 $ !XOXXX    =OXdd=    0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@!vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular,"3 \!33&backup3|xTABLE AU   $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    9    _ XXpXXXXpRuffinarguesthatsomeadditionaldiscoverywaspermitted  #XXpXX XXp#aftertheformaldeadline.However,thatfactdidnotdeprivethe  courtoftheabilitytoenforcethatdeadlineastoothertypesof \ discovery.   $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    2    _"_ETOH_"isanabbreviationforethylalcohol.AsFinnlater  explained,thephrase"obvious_ETOH_"referredtohisimpression  thatRuffinwasintoxicated.)L  ZCG Times (CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.   $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    3    _ XXpXXXXpIn1998,afederalciviljuryfoundWilliamsliableinthat  incidentfor,interalia,excessiveforce,assaultandbattery,  deliberateindifferencetoexcessiveforce,anddeliberate \ indifferencetomedicalneeds.#XXpXX XXp#SeeCoxv.CityofBoston,No.95 2 12729(D.Mass.filedDec.18,1995),docketentry420(Dec.22, X 1998)(juryverdict). XXpXXXXpԀWemaytakejudicialnoticeofcourt . proceedings. _Maher_v.Hyde,272F.3d83,86n.3(1stCir.2001).#XXpXX XXp#(;3$2#  0  .3  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7M(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7&  d dL)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7  ?[%2A`Arial?  SZ\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X7L)2dxd0KS.SampleKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKY<6X9`(Courier NewKSZ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  %&()*+,- 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial- -3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)]i)  $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    1    _Ruffiniswhite;GriffinandWilliamsareblack. a  $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    8    _Ifthecoveruporconspiracytocoverupclaimshadsurvived  tothispoint,thepolicymighthavebeenrelevant.Butthe  districtcourthadalreadyproperlygrantedjudgmentasamatterof \ lawonthoseclaims.See XXpXXXXpinfra#XXpXX XXp#Part_III.F._ -  $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    4    _Hedoesnotchallengetheexclusionofthetestimonyabout  Williams'sshirt.   $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    5    _ i Ruffinneverexplained,eithertothedistrictcourtorin  hisappellatebrief,whetherhemeanttoofferevidenceof  Williams'sreputationfortruthfulnessorhisreputationfor \ violence.However,attrialRuffin'scounselexplainedthatthe 2 basisforadmittingreputationevidencewasRule404.Theonly X basisunderRule404foradmittingevidenceofacivildefendant's . reputationisRule404(a)(3),whichpermits,interalia,evidence   ofawitness'scharacterfortruthfulnesspursuanttoRule608(a).   Consequently,weassume,forpurposesofthisappeal,thatRuffin `  intendedtointroduceevidenceofWilliams'sreputationfor 6   truthfulness.Evidenceofareputationforviolencewouldprobably  \  nothavebeenadmissibleunderanyrule;reputationevidence"may  2  referonlytocharacterfortruthfulnessoruntruthfulness."Fed.   R._Evid_.608(a)(1)(emphasisadded).      $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    6    _Ruffinsuggeststhathedidnottakeupthecourt's  invitationtomakeanofferofproofbecauseofthecourt'slater  exclusionofevidenceconcerningWilliams'sjobstatus.Butif \ RuffingenuinelyintendedtoofferevidenceofWilliams's 2 reputationfortruthfulness,asopposedtoareputationfor X violence,see XXpXXXXpsupra#XXpXX XXp#note;i,fn_repfortruthfulness;5  ,thentheexclusionofevidence . regardingjobstatushadnobearingonpotentialreputation   evidenceregardingtruthfulness.Evenincaseswhere"thecourt   telegraphedwhatitsrulingwaslikelytobeif XXpXXXXp...#XXpXX XXp #Ԁcounsel `  openedthedoor"byofferingdisputedevidence,wetreatthematter 6   asforfeitedif"thelatterneverknocked."UnitedStatesv.  \  Griffin,818F.2d97,103(1stCir.1987).Underthe  2  circumstances,weseenoreasontoexcusetheforfeiture.   $XXpXXX  =XpXdd=    7    _WealsonotethatthecourtadmonishedGriffinwhenhe  strayedfromthequestion,statingatonepoint,"No,hereisthe  question,canyouanswerthequestion?Idon'twantan \ explanation."fn_repfortruthfulness !XXpXXX  _  TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT* ! X)XXXXp X X)     )X X)XX)\8XpXXdd8  d@NotForPublicationinWest'sFederalReporter  @@ CitationLimitedPursuantto1stCir.Loc.R.32.3# X)XXX)!## X X)@#  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals M/   FortheFirstCircuit  A M/ XXpX A \ A') ` dE< ` A   No.032102 w  @$PETER_RUFFIN_, # s  @*@ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @tt)v. {  @ CITYOFBOSTON;DAVIDC.WILLIAMS;JAMESGRIFFIN;PAULEVANS; 'w    ANNMARIE_DOHERTY_;andSEVERALUNKNOWNCITYOFBOSTONPOLICE M OFFICERS, # Defendants,Appellees@@*.  A') ` dE<*` A +{ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ` FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS@@dd 6 [Hon.EdwardF.Harrington,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]@@dd  A') ` dE<=` A > @@'Before #s @@((Boudin,ChiefJudge,   LynchandLipez,CircuitJudges. ! A') ` dE<P!` A Q!#       StephenA.Roach,withwhomRoach&Wise,_LLP_wasonbrief, 6"% forappellant.  #\&   EveA.PiemonteStacey,AssistantCorporationCounsel,Cityof #2' BostonLawDepartment,withwhom_Merita_ԀA.Hopkins,Corporation $ ( Counsel,wasonbrief,forappelleesCityofBoston,JamesGriffin, % ) PaulEvans,AnnMarie_Doherty_,andSeveralUnknownCityofBoston d&!* PoliceOfficers. :'"+   ScottP.Lopez,SpecialAssistantCorporationCounsel,with (`#, whom_Merita_ԀA.Hopkins,CorporationCounsel,wasonbrief,for (6$- appelleeDavidC.Williams. ) %. *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  h+&0h+&   SI+'1 @38596@SSeptember2,2005 ,'3  RHCx-(4" @38596 @ R ," +'5  ,d@ d  d  * !   ` _LIPEZ_,CircuitJudge. Thisappealstemsfroman   excessiveforceclaimagainstseveralBostonpoliceofficers. x PlaintiffappellantPeter_Ruffin_,whosufferedinjuriesduringan $t altercationwithpolice,allegedthattheofficershadbeatenhim   withoutprovocationandthenparticipatedinacoverupdesignedto |  shiftattentionawayfromtheirconductandtowardssomeincidental ( x  propertydamage_Ruffin_Ԁhadinadvertentlycausedwhilebeingbeaten. $  Thecaseproceededtojurytrialandthejuryfoundforthe   defendantpoliceofficers.Onappeal,_Ruffin_Ԁmainlychallenges ,|  variousevidentiaryrulingsandtrialmanagementdecisions.Many ( oftheseclaimswerenotpreservedbelow.Havingcarefully  reviewedtherecordoftheentiretrial,andconcludingthat_Ruffin_ 0 receivedafairtrial,weaffirm. ,   I.     A.  FactualBackground  P    ` Thiscaseturnedentirelyonafactualdisputeaboutwhat h actuallyhappenedintheearlymorninghoursofMay5,1996.A   totaloftenwitnessestothealtercation(orpartofit)testified p!" Єfive(including_Ruffin_Ԁhimself)onbehalfof_Ruffin_Ԁandfive #l$ (includingdefendantsWilliamsandGriffin)onbehalfof $ & defendants.Notsurprisingly,eachwitness'sversionvaries t&!( substantiallyfromthatofeveryotherwitness,andthetruthis  (p#* difficulttodetermine.Weprovideonlyabriefsummaryofthe )%, facts,recitingtheminthelightmostfavorabletothejury's x+&. verdict.UnitedStatesv._Castellini_,392F.3d35,39(1stCir.  2004). \    ` IntheearlymorninghoursofMay5,1996,_Ruffin_Ԁwas X withfamilyandfriendsatabarinDorchester,Massachusetts.   Overthecourseoftheday,_Ruffin_Ԁhadconsumedsomeeightbeersin `  elevenhours._Ruffin_'ssister,Colleen_O'Herlihy_,alsohadbeen  \  drinking.Whenshelefttodrivehome,thefamilywasconcerned   that_O'Herlihy_Ԁhadimbibedtoomuchtodrivesafely,andfollowed d  hertotheparkinglot._Ruffin_Ԁapproachedherandattemptedto `  persuadehernottodrive._O'Herlihy_Ԁwasresistant,andthetwo   beganarguinginloudvoices.Aneighborviewedtheargumentfrom h adistanceandmistakenlybelievedthat_Ruffin_Ԁwasattacking d _O'Herlihy_.Shecalled911andreporteda"manbeatingawoman."     ` BostonpoliceofficersWilliamsandGriffin,defendants l appellees,respondedtothe911dispatcherandarrivedatthe h parkinglot.Theysaw_Ruffin_Ԁpinning_O'Herlihy_Ԁtotheground,and  orderedhimtogetoffher.Astheofficersattemptedtopull p  _Ruffin_Ԁoff_O'Herlihy_,heyelledprofanitiesandracialslurs._ #  1      ׀A !l" struggleensuedastheofficersattemptedtoarrestandhandcuff "$ _Ruffin_Ԁandhefoughtthem.Duringthisscuffle,both_Ruffin_Ԁand t$& Griffinwereinjured,_Ruffin_Ԁmoreseverely._Ruffin_'sfamilyand  &p!(  friendswitnessedvariousportionsofthisaltercation. '#*    ` Oneoftheofficersmadean"officerintrouble"radio   call,andotherofficersrespondedshortly._Ruffin_Ԁwaseventually \ placedintothebackofapolicecruiser.Hecontinuedstruggling X andkickedouttherearpassengerwindow.Theofficersthenmoved   himtoawindowlesswagonfortransportationtothepolicestation. `  Atthestation,_Ruffin_Ԁcontinuedtobecombativeanduncooperative.  \  Anemergencymedicaltechnician(whosetreatment_Ruffin_Ԁrefused)   notedinhislogthat_Ruffin_Ԁwasintoxicatedandbelligerent. d   B.  ProceduralHistory  `     ` Threeyearsaftertheincident,_Ruffin_Ԁfiledsuitagainst ( namedandunknownpoliceofficers,theCityofBoston,former  PoliceCommissionerPaulEvans,andSuperintendentAnnMarie 0 _Doherty_,allegingvariousfederalandstateclaims._Ruffin_Ԁalleged , thatWilliamshadstruckhimfrombehindwithoutprovocationand  thattheofficershadthenbeatenhimseverelywhileheofferedno 4 resistance.Accordingto_Ruffin_,ashewasbeingplacedintothe 0 backofthepolicecruiser,Williamschoked_Ruffin_Ԁandstuckhis   thumbinto_Ruffin_'seyewithsuchforcethat_Ruffin_Ԁbeganflailing 8!" andinvoluntarilykickedoutthewindow.Policesupervisorsthen "4$ usedthisbrokenwindowasapretexttoexplainthebeatingand $& covereduptherealnatureoftheevent. <&!(    ` _Ruffin_'scomplaintalleged,interalia,thatdefendants '8#* violatedhiscivilrightsbyusingunreasonableforce,failingto )$, intervene,coveringupacivilrightsviolationbyfalseor @+&. _!misleadingstatements,andconspiringtocoverupacivilrights  violation.Thedistrictcourtseveredtheindividualliability \ claimsagainstWilliamsandGriffinfromthesupervisoryclaims X againsttheotherdefendants,andthefederalclaimsunder42   U.S.C.1983fromthestatelawclaims. `     ` The1983claimsagainstthetwonamedofficers  \  proceededtojurytrial.Atthecloseoftheplaintiff'scase,the   courtgrantedthedefendants'motionforjudgmentasamatterof d  lawonRuffin'scoverupandconspiracytocoverupclaims.The `  excessiveforceandfailuretointerveneclaimsweresubmittedto   thejury,whichreturnedverdictsforthedefendants.Thedistrict h courtthendismissedRuffin'sremainingfederalclaimsagainstthe d supervisorydefendantsandtheCity,andtransferredthestatelaw  claimstoMassachusettsstatecourt.Ruffintimelyappealed. l   II.  h      ` Ruffinraisesvariousclaimsonappeal,arisingfrom 0 pretrialdiscoveryrulings,evidentiaryrulingsattrial,the   districtcourt'strialmanagement,anditsgrantofpartial 8!" judgmentasamatteroflawfordefendants.Weaddressthealleged "4$ errorsapproximatelyintheorderinwhichRuffinpresentsthem, $& combiningtwoissuesthatarebettertreatedtogether. <&!(  &   A.  AdmissionofThomasFinn'sReportandTestimony  '8#*    ` WhileRuffinwasatthepolicestation,EmergencyMedical )%, TechnicianThomasFinnevaluatedRuffin's' '2injuriesandoffered \+&. medicaltreatment,whichRuffinrefused.Althoughbythetimeof  trialFinncouldnolongerrecalltheeventsofMay5,1996,hehad \ contemporaneouslyrecordedhisobservationsinabriefpatientcare X report.Thereport,besidesdescribingRuffin'sinjuries,noted   thathehadrefusedtreatment,whichcontradictedRuffin's `  testimonythathehadneverbeenofferedtreatment.Thereport  \  alsonoted"obviousETOH" #  2      ׀and"belligerenttowardauthority."      ` Beforetrial,RuffinmovedinliminetoexcludeFinn's d  testimonyandreportonthegroundsthattheevidencewasrelevant `  onlytoanearlierclaimoffailuretoprovidemedicalassistance,   whichRuffinhadvoluntarilydismissed.Inaseparatedocument, h Ruffinobjectedtothenotation"belligerenttowardsauthority." d Attrial,thedefensesoughttoputFinnonthestandandto  introducethereportintoevidence.OverRuffin'sobjection,the l courtpermittedFinntotestifybasedonthereport(sincehehad h noindependentrecollection)andpermittedthedefensetopublish  thereporttothejury. p     ` Onappeal,RuffinarguesthatFinn'sreportandtestimony !l" baseduponthatreportwereinadmissiblehearsay.Appellees "$ respondthatthereportwasadmissibleundervarioushearsay t$& exceptions.SeeFed.R.Evid.803(1)(presentsenseimpression),  &p!( 803(5)(pastrecollectionrecorded),803(6)(businessrecord), '#* 803(8)(publicrecord).Appelleesfurtherarguethatany  statementsbyRuffinincorporatedintothereport(andhencedouble \ hearsay)areadmissibleunderotherrules.SeeFed.R.Evid. X 613(b)(extrinsicevidenceofpriorinconsistentstatementfor   impeachment),801(d)(2)(A)(admissionbypartyopponent),803(2) `  (excitedutterance),803(3)(existingstateofmind),803(4)  \  (statementsforpurposeofmedicaldiagnosis).Ruffinalsoargues   thatFinnwasbiasedbecausehewasamemberoftheBostonPolice d  Patrolman'sAssociationand,byvirtueofhisposition,sympathetic `  topoliceofficers.      ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sadmissionofdisputed h evidenceforabuseofdiscretion.UnitedStatesv.Flemmi,402 d F.3d79,86(1stCir.2005).Finn'sownobservationscontainedin  thepatientcarereportwereadmissibleas,atleast,business l recordsunderRule803(6).DoublehearsaystatementsbyRuffinin h thatreportwereadmissibleasstatementsofapartyopponentunder  Rule801(d)(2)(A).Finally,Ruffinwasabletodevelopincross p  examinationhistheorythatFinnwasbiasedtowardspoliceofficers !l" andhadamotivetofalsifyhisreporttobuttresstheofficers' "$ account.Ultimately,theadmissibilityofthereportandtestimony t$& werequintessentialdiscretionarycallsforthetrialcourt,and  &p!(  thecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninadmittingthatevidence. '#*  &   B.0  InquiryintoWilliams'sJobStatus,Reputation,and/orPrior  BadActs B(#(#    ` 1.0 TheExcludedTestimony\ (# (#    ` Beforethecomplaintinthiscasewasfiled,Williamswas  X terminatedfromthe'BԀBostonpoliceforanunrelatedincidentof   allegedexcessiveforce. #  3      ׀Hehasnotbeenamemberofanypolice `   forcesincethen.  \     ` Notsurprisingly,RuffinwishedtoexploreWilliams's   reputation,employmenthistory,andpriorexcessiveforcehistory, d  andWilliamswishedtoavoidit.Theissuefirstsurfacedduring ` directexaminationofRuffinhimself.Ruffin'scounselasked   whether,beforeMay5,1996,RuffinhadeverseenWilliams.Ruffin h startedtoanswerthathehadonceseenWilliams(presumablyoff d duty)inabusinessestablishmentinDorchester.Williams's  counselobjected,anditemergedthatRuffinwouldtestifythat l Williamswaswearingashirt(presumablynotofficialdepartment h issue)thatsaidwordstotheeffectof"BostonPolice,Toughest  GangThereIs."Williams'scounselagainobjectedonthegroundof p ! relevance,andthecourtsustainedtheobjection.Thefollowing "l# exchangethenoccurred: #% 8  8`   MR.ROACH[Ruffin'scounsel]:I'dlikejustto  sayonethingfortherecord,YourHonor.I'm  sorrytokeepyou.I'mgoingtoputinto \ evidencelateroninthiscase,Ijustwant 2 youtoknow,therearepeoplearound X Dorchesterinthecommunity,specificallyhis . mother,otherpeopleknewDaveWilliamsandhe   hadareputation.Iamgoingtotrytoput   thatintoevidenceatsomepoint.` ` x` x 8  8`   MR.LOPEZ[Williams'scounsel]:His  \  reputation? 2 ` x` x 8  8`   MR.ROACH:UnderRule404. ` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Iamnotgoingtoletitinbecause :  theissuealreadyisnarrow:Didtheybeat `  himordidn'tthey.Hisreputationis 6 irrelevantbecausethereisnoextortion,   thereisnofear` x` x 8  8`   MR.ROACH:Well,Ithinkthedefense,Your > Honor,isgoingtosayd` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Well,let'sseewhatthedefense  does.` x` x 8  8`   MR.ROACH:CanImakeanofferofproofonthe B recordonthis?h` x` x 8  8`   THECOURT:Well,youmay,butnotatthis  time.` x` x 8  8`   MR.ROACH:Okay.F !` x` x I    ` TheissuelaterarosebeforeWilliams'sdirect !B# examination.Williams'scounselrequestedasidebartoclarify #% whetherRuffinwouldbeabletocrossexamineWilliamsregarding J% ' hiscurrentjobstatusandtoobjecttosuchcrossexaminationas &F") irrelevant.Ruffin'scounseladvisedthecourtthathewishedto (#+ "askhimifhe'sstillemployedasapoliceofficer,yesorno, N*%- sir,whatdoyoudo.Thatisit,I'mnotgoingtoaskhimabout +J'/ whyoranything."Thecourtdescribedthatas"adangerous  question,"andinquiredwhether"thepurposeof[your]askingitis \ toleavetheinference...thathewaskickedoutforgoodcause, X [because]it'sprejudicialifitdidn'tgrowoutofthiscase."   Ruffin'scounselconfirmedthatWilliams'sterminationwas `  unrelatedtothiscase,andthecourtsustainedtheobjection.  \     ` 2.0 Analysis  (# (#    ` Onappeal,Ruffinchallengesthedistrictcourt's d  exclusionofinquiryintoWilliams'sjobstatus,disciplinary `  history,andreputation.b #  4            ` First,hechallengesthecourt'srulingpreventinghim h frominquiringintoWilliams'spresentjobstatus.Henotesthat d underFed.R.Evid.608(b),"[s]pecificinstancesoftheconductof  awitness,forthepurposeofattackingorsupportingthewitness' l characterfortruthfulness....may,...inthediscretionof h thecourt,ifprobativeoftruthfulnessoruntruthfulness,be  inquiredintooncross-examinationofthewitness...concerning p  thewitness'characterfortruthfulnessoruntruthfulness."Fed. !l" R.Evid.608(b). "$    ` Ruffin'sargumentfailsfortwoindependentreasons. t$& First,hedidnotarguebelowthatcharacterfortruthfulnesswas  &p!( abasisfortheinquiry,butrathertacitlyconfirmedthedistrict '#* court'ssuspicionthatthepurposeofthequestionwastocreatean  inferenceofpropensitytoengageinmisconduct.Consequently,any \ argumentthattheevidencewasadmissibleunderRule608is X forfeited.SeeTatev.Robbins&Myers,Inc.,790F.2d10,12(1st   Cir.1986)("[I]fevidenceisexcludedbecauseitisinadmissible `  foritsonlyarticulatedpurpose,theproponentoftheevidence  \  cannotchallengetherulingonappealonthegroundthatthe   evidence'couldhavebeenrightlyadmittedforanotherpurpose.'") d  (citationomitted).Second,thedistrictcourt"haswide `  discretionunderRule608(b),"NavarrodeCosmev.HospitalPavia,   922F.2d926,933(1stCir.1991),aswellasRules402 h (inadmissibilityofirrelevantevidence),403(exclusionof d relevantevidenceongroundsofprejudice),and404(b)(exclusion  ofevidenceofotheractstodemonstratepropensitytoactina l certainfashion).Thecourtwasentitledtofindthatthequestion h ranafoulofanyoralloftheaboverules.Putanotherway,the  inferencethatRuffinwishedtoraisethatbecauseWilliamshad p  beenterminatedforanunrelatedincident,hewasprobablyatfault !l" inthisincidenttooispreciselythetypeofinferencethatthe "$ FederalRulesofEvidenceseektopreventapartyfromraising. t$& WhilethespecificquestionthatRuffinwantedtoaskwasnotso  &p!( blatantlyprejudicialthatthedistrictcourtwasrequiredto '#* excludeit,thecourtcertainlywasnotrequiredtopermitit x)$, either,anddidnotabuseitsdiscretioninexcludingit. $+t&.  (83]! !    ` Second,Ruffinchallengesthedistrictcourt'sexclusion  ofevidenceconcerningWilliams'sreputationorpriorbadacts. \ Suchevidencecan,inappropriatecircumstances,beadmissiblefor X limitedpurposes.SeegenerallyFed.R.Evid.404(b)(evidenceof   otheractsmaybeadmissibletoshow,e.g.,"absenceofmistakeor `  accident"),608(a)(impeachmentbyreputationfortruthfulness),  \  608(b)(impeachmentbyspecificinstancesofconduct).Onthe   otherhand,thattypeofevidencealsocarriestherisksofunfair d  prejudice,seeFed.R.Evid.403,orbeingmisusedtodemonstrate `  propensitytoactinacertainway,seeFed.R.Evid.404(b).The   balanceisdelicate,andcourtshaveoccasionallyheldthatitwas h erroneoustoexcludesuchevidence.See,e.g.,Carsonv.Polley, d 689F.2d562,571-572(5thCir.1982)(reversingdistrictcourt's  exclusionofperformanceevaluationsoftwodeputysheriffsstating l thattheyneededtocontroltheirtempers,holdingthatonereport h wasadmissibleunderRule404(b)toshowintenttoharmplaintiff  inmate,andotherwasadmissibleunderRule608(b)). p     ` Werealizethatevidenceofotherinstancesinwhich !l" Williamsallegedlyusedexcessiveforcemighthavebeenhelpfulto "$ Ruffininswayingthejury.However,therewasalsoariskthat, t$& despiteanylimitinginstructions,thejurywouldusetheevidence  &p!( notjusttoevaluateWilliams'struthfulness,butalsotoestablish '#* apropensityforsuchconduct.Thedistrictcourtwasinthebest x)$, positiontodeterminewhethertheriskofunfairprejudicewould $+t&. outweighthelegitimateusesoftheevidence,andwearereluctant  todisturbitsrulinggiventhewidelatitudeweaccordtotrial \ judgesinthisarea.Wedonotfindanabuseofdiscretion. X    ` OtherrulingstowhichRuffinobjectsareeasily   resolved.First, hearguesthatpermittingthedefensetoreferto `  Williamsas"Officer"Williams,inthepresenttense,was  \  prejudicialtoRuffinbecauseitcreatedthefalseimpressionthat   Williamswasstillapoliceofficer.Sincehedidnot d  contemporaneouslyobject,wereviewonlyforplainerror,Fed.R. `  Evid.103(d);Banderav.CityofQuincy,344F.3d47,55(1stCir.   2003),andfindnone.Second,hearguesthatthedistrictcourt h erroneouslyexcludedevidenceofWilliams'sreputation .c #  5      But, d despitethecourt'sstatementthatcounselcouldmakeanofferof , proofontherecordatsomelaterpoint,counselneverattemptedto   introduceevidenceofWilliams'sreputation.Sincehedidnot 4 attempttooffersuchevidence,hecannotcomplainonappealthat  itwasnotpermitted.SeeFed.R.Evid.103(a)(2).f #  6      ׀  x   \  C. 0  DeprivationofaFairTrial X(#(#    ` Ruffinassertsthatvariouscommentsmadebythedistrict   courtduringthecourseofthetrial,concerningthecredibilityof |  Ruffin,oneofhiswitnesses,hiscounsel,andanultimateissuein ( x  thecase,deniedRuffinafairtrial.Ourstandardofreviewfor $  suchchargesreflectstherealitiesoftrialmanagement:   8  Biasandimproperconductbyatrialjudgemaybegrounds ,|  foranewtrialifapartyissoseriouslyprejudicedas R tobedeprivedofafairtrial.However,mereactive ( participationbythejudgedoesnotcreateprejudicenor  deprivethepartyofafairtrial.Onappeal,wemust  considerisolatedincidentsinlightoftheentire Z transcriptsoastoguardagainstmagnificationonappeal 0 ofinstanceswhichwereoflittleimportanceintheir V setting.,   itDearyv.CityofGloucester,9F.3d191,194(1stCir.1993)  (internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted). 4    ` Ruffinfirstclaimsthatthedistrictcourtinterrupted 0 hiscrossexaminationofawitness,SergeantTerestre,and   commentedonthecaseinamannerthatwouldleadthejuryto  believethatthecourtadoptedthedefenseversionofprecisely \ whathappenedwhenRuffinkickedoutthewindowofthecruiser. X SergeantTerestre,whowasthesupervisorofWilliamsandGriffin,   testifiedthathearrivedinresponsetothe"officerintrouble" `  callatapproximatelythetimethatthecruiserwindowwaskicked  \  out.PartofRuffin'stheoryofthecasewasthatSergeant   Terestrehadactuallyarrivedearlierandwitnessedtheinitial d  confrontation,buthadattemptedtocoverupthebeatingandhis `  failuretostopit.Oncrossexamination,Ruffin'scounseltried   toexamineTerestreabouthisconcernforthecruiserwindowto h showthatitwasjustarusetodivertattentionfromthebeating. d Whileitisnotclearfromtheprintedtranscript,itappearsthat  Ruffin'scounselusedanundulysarcastictoneofvoiceinthis l examination,andthecourtadmonishedhimforit.Thecourtalso h repeatedlyurgedRuffin'scounselto"moveon."     ` Ourreviewofthetranscriptindicatesthatthe p  challengedstatements,takenincontext,weredefensibleeffortsto !l" movethecrossexaminationalongasRuffin'scounselattempted "$ withoutsuccesstoinduceTerestretoadmitthathehadwitnessed t$& aconfrontationthatTerestreinsistedhehadnotwitnessed.We  &p!( accordconsiderabledeferencetothedistrictcourtinsuch '#* matters: x)$, 8  Thetrialjudgehasdiscretiontomaintainthepaceof $+t&. trial,andindeedhastheresponsibilitytooverseethe +J'/ conductofatrialsothatitmovesexpeditiously.  Therefore,encouragingcounseltomoveforward,  forbiddingcounselfromelicitingduplicativetestimony, \ orhaltingwhatthecourtperceivedtobeawasteof 2 time,wasfirmlywithinthediscretionofthetrial X judge..   Id.at19495.      ` Ruffinnextcomplainsaboutthecourt'ssharpadmonitions 6   towitnessMaryFlynn,whowitnessedmostofthealtercation.Even  2  fromtheprintedtranscript,itisevidentthatFlynnwasafeisty,   spiritedwitnesswithapenchantforstatingherthoughtswhenthe :  questioncalledforherobservationsor,indeed,whentherewasno 6 questionbeforeher.Thecourt'sresponsesescalatedeachtime  Flynninjectedheropinionswherenonewererequested.Thefirst > timeshedidthis,thecourtsimplyinstructedhertoanswerthe : questionsasked;thesecondtime,itwarnedRuffin'scounselto  controlher;thethirdtime,itwarnedRuffin'scounselatsidebar B thatifhecouldnotcontrolthewitness,thecourtwoulddeclare > amistrial;finally,havingexhaustedallofthesemeasures,the  courtadmonishedFlynninthepresenceofthejury.Inreviewing F ! thistypeoftrialmanagement,"thewidestpossiblelatitudeis !B# giventothejudgeonthescene."Rodriguezv.BancoCentral #% Corp.,990F.2d7,12(1stCir.1993).Thecourt'shandlingof J% ' Flynnfellwellwithinthatlatitude.h #  7       &F")    ` Finally,Ruffincomplainsthatthecourt'sadmonishment  ofcounselwasunbalancedbecausethecourt,insustainingRuffin's \ objections,didnotsufficientlychastisedefensecounsel.Our X reviewofthetranscriptrevealsthatthecourt'scommentsto   counselforallpartieswerewithinitsdiscretiongiventhenature `  oftheeventsleadingtotheremark,andthecourtdisplayedno  \  improperbiasagainstRuffinorhiscounsel.    D.0  ExclusionofBostonPoliceDepartmentRule327 d (#(#    ` AspartofhistheorythatSergeantTerestreusedthe ,|  breakingofthecruiserwindowasaconvenientdistractionto ( divertattentionfromapolicebeating,Ruffin'scounselpressed  thepointthattheinitial911callhadbeenfordomesticviolence 0 andthepolicehadneveractuallyinvestigateddomesticviolence. , RuffinsoughttointroduceBostonPoliceDepartmentRule327  ("ProtectionofAbusedPersons"),whichspecifiesproceduresfor 4 respondingtodomesticviolencecalls.Ruffin'stheorywasthat 0 Terestrehaddecidedthatitwouldbesimplertofocusonabroken   cruiserwindow,ratherthanthecomparativelydauntingworkof 8!" followingthroughwithRule327'srequirementsforinvestigatinga "4$ domesticviolenceincident,andfurthermorethatthecontentsofa $& properlyinvestigateddomesticviolencereportwouldshowthat <&!( therehadbeennodomesticviolenceincident,thuscallinginto '8#*  questionthedefendants'versionofthealtercation. )$,    ` ThecourtpermittedRuffintocrossexamineTerestre   aboutRule327ingeneralterms.However,whenRuffinattemptedto \ markitasanexhibitinanticipationofintroducingitinto X evidence,defensecounselobjectedandthecourtsustainedthe   objection.Neitherthedefenseobjectionnorthecourt'sruling `  explicitlystatedtheirgrounds,butfromcontextwecandiscern  \  threereasonsforexcludingRule327,anyofwhichwouldsuffice.      ` ThemostobviousrationaleforexcludingRule327isthat d  itwasirrelevant.SeeFed.R.Evid.401.Theissuesremainingin `  thecaseatthatpointwerewhetherWilliamsandGriffinhadused   excessiveforceorfailedtointervenewhenanotherofficerused h excessiveforce.Thecontentsofapolicedepartmentpolicyon d respondingtodomesticviolenceincidentswerenotrelevanttothis  determination.a #  8      ׀Alternatively,ifthepurposeofintroducingRule l 327wastoattackSergeantTerestre'scredibilitybysuggesting h thathehadfabricatedastorytoavoidpaperwork,thedistrict  courthadthediscretiontoexcludetheevidencebecause p  "[s]pecificinstancesoftheconductofawitness,forthepurpose !l" ofattackingorsupportingthewitness'characterfortruthfulness "$ ...maynotbeprovedbyextrinsicevidence."Fed.R.Evid. t$& 608(b).Finally,eveniftherulearguablyhadsomerelevance,_!!it  &p!( wasatbestperipheral,andthedistrictcourthadthediscretion  toexcludeitbecause"itsprobativevalue[was]substantially \ outweighedbythedangerof...confusionoftheissues,or X misleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteof   time,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence."Fed.R. `  _!!Evid_!!.403.Inanyevent,thedistrictcourtdidnotabuseits  \  discretioninexcludingRule327.    E.0  DenialofMotionforTelephonicDeposition d (#(#    ` Oneof_!!Ruffin_!!'slistedwitnesseswasMargaret_!!Finnerty_!!, ,|  anIrishcitizenandfriendof_!!Ruffin_!!'sauntwhohadwitnessedthe ( incident._!!Finnerty_!!ԀhadmovedbacktoIrelandsoonafterthe1996  incident,but_!!Ruffin_!!ԀhadbelievedthatshewouldflytoBostonto 0 testifyinhistrial,whichwasscheduledforJune30,2003. , Shortlybeforetrial,_!!Ruffin_!!Ԁlearnedthatshewouldnot,infact,  beabletomakethetrip.OnJune5,2003,hemovedfora 4 telephonicdeposition.Defendantsopposedthemotion,arguingthat 0 itwasuntimely,procedurallydefectiveunderFed.R.Civ.P.28(b)   (governingforeigndepositions),inappropriateforthetypeof 8!" factsonthegroundtestimony_!!Finnerty_!!Ԁwouldoffer,andunjustified "4$ becausehertestimonywouldbecumulativewiththatof_!!Ruffin_!!'s $& otherwitnesses.OnJune17,2003,thedistrictcourtdenied <&!(  _!!Ruffin_!!'srequest,notingthat_!!Ruffin_!!'smotion"comesontheeveof '8#* _!!aJune30,2003trialandapproximatelyninemonthsafterthe  September,2002closeofdiscoveryinthiscase." #  9      ׀ \     ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdiscoveryrulingsfor X abuseofdiscretion,Bogosianv.WoloohojianRealtyCorp.,323F.3d   55,63(1stCir.2003),andfindnoerror.Thecombinationof(1) `  thelatenessoftherequestafterthediscoverydeadline,(2)the  \  proximityoftherequesttothetrialdate,(3)thelackof   justificationfornotmakingtherequestearlier,(4)thepotential d  proceduralcomplicationsofaforeigndepositionunderFed.R.Civ. `  P.28(b),(5)Ruffin'sapparentfailuretorecognizethatsuch   issuesevenexisted,and(6)thefactthatFinnerty'stestimony, h whilelikelyhelpfultoRuffin,wasnotindispensable,providedan d adequatebasisforthecourt,intheexerciseofitsbroad  discoverymanagementdiscretion,todenytherequest. l  &   F.0  DismissalofCoverUpandConspiracyClaims   h(#(#    ` AtthecloseofRuffin'scaseinchief,defendantsmoved 0 forjudgmentasamatter' !bԀoflawunderFed.R.Civ.P.50(a).The   districtcourtgrantedthatmotioninpartanddenieditinpart, 8!" findingthatRuffinhadadvancedasufficientevidentiarybasisfor "4$ hisexcessiveforceandfailuretointerveneclaims,butnotfor $& hiscoverupandconspiracytocoverupclaims.Ruffin_!!challenges <&!( thisrulingonappeal.Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sgrantof  judgmentasamatteroflawdenovo.GuillotyPerezv._!!Pierluisi_!!, \ 339F.3d43,50(1stCir.2003). X    ` Ourreviewindicatesthatthedistrictcourtwasexactly   rightingrantingthemotiononthecoverupandconspiracyclaims `  butnottheexcessiveforceorfailuretointerveneclaims.  \  _!!Ruffin_!!'switnessestestifiedalmostexclusivelyastotheeventsof   thearrestandaltercationitself.Notonescintillaofevidence d  regardingacoveruporconspiracywasadduced.Onappeal,_!!Ruffin_!! `  doesnotattempttorefutethispoint.Instead,hediscusses   largelyirrelevantproceduralcircumstances.Wefindnoerrorin h thecourt'sruling. d    ` Affirmed._!! _!!