The District Court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial but granted a remittitur reducing the award of punitive damages to $50 million. Inter Med. Supplies, Ltd. v. EBI Med. Sys., Inc., 975 F. Supp. 681, 685 (D.N.J. 1997).

N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.14(a) (emphasis added); Inter Med. Supplies Ltd. v. EBI Med. Sys., Inc. , 975 F.Supp. 681, 699 (D.N.J. 1997), aff'd and remanded , 181 F.3d 446 (3rd Cir. 1999) (holding that New Jersey Punitive Damages Act mandates "greater judicial scrutiny of jury awards than had existed under the common law"). The statute further empowers me to reduce or eliminate the award "[i]f necessary to satisfy the requirements" listed in the previous sentence.

As a general matter, "[t]he decision whether to grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) lies within the district court's sound discretion." Inter Med. Supplies v. EBI Med. Sys., 975 F. Supp. 681, 686 (D.N.J. 1997) (citing Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 (1980)). Jury interrogatories are authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49. "The formulation of jury interrogatories is entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge."

No legal or practical reason prevented the case from being tried jointly as to the two plaintiffs without distinction as to how much of the total recovery should be appropriated to each plaintiff. Id.; Inter Med. Supplies Ltd. V. EBI Med. Sys. Inc., 975 F.Supp. 681, 691 (D.N.J. 1997). Accordingly, the jury properly awarded a total sum to both plaintiffs and against each of the defendants.

On this trial record, collective references to Plaintiffs was appropriate and necessary to avoid jury confusion and to avoid the possibility of an excessive or duplicative award of damages. See generally Inter Med. Supplies Ltd. v. EBI Med. Sys., Inc., 975 F. Supp. 681, 691 (D.N.J. 1997), aff'd & remanded, 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999) (rejecting defendants' post-trial argument of error for the verdict's failure to separate damages for each wholly owned, vertically aligned subsidiary plaintiff). The jury instructions provided a correct statement of the law applicable to the claims and "left the attorneys ample room to argue their case."

As a general matter, "[t]he decision whether to grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) lies within the district court's sound discretion." Inter Med. Supplies v. EBI Med. Sys., 975 F. Supp. 681, 686 (D.N.J. 1997) (citing Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S. Ct. 188, 191 (1980)). That discretion is at its maximum where the trial court is presented with an error of law that resulted in prejudice:

5. I agree with Eaton that the case cited by plaintiffs during oral argument, Inter Med. Supplies Ltd. v. EBI Medical Sys., Inc., 975 F.Supp. 681 (D.N.J.1997), aff'd 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir.1999), is not compelling authority for the unusual facts at bar, given that the plaintiffs in that case were “wholly-owned, vertically-aligned subsidiaries that participated in the same market at the same time and thus shared the same lost sales at the same time.” (D.I. 368) In contrast, the joint venture agreement (“the Agreement”) which aligned the plaintiffs at bar specifically provided that the joint venture plaintiff—ZF Meritor LLC—“shall not be deemed to be an Affiliate of any other Party or any of such other Party's Affiliates.” (Agreement, Article 1, ¶ 1.4) The Agreement also provided that ZF Meritor LLC was to enjoy market exclusivity (vis a vis the joint venture members) of those certain transmission products which were the subject of the Agreement. (Agreement, Article XIII, ¶ 13.

Certainly parts of it do. See Inter Med. Supplies, Ltd. v. EBI Med. Sys., Inc., 181 F.3d 446, 464 (3d Cir. 1999) ("[S]tate law governs the propriety of awarding punitive damages and the factors to be considered in determining the amount.") (citing Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 279 (1989); see also Inter Med. Supplies Ltd. v. EBI Med. Sys., Inc., 975 F. Supp. 681, 698 (D.N.J. 1997) aff'd and remanded, 181 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 1999) (finding that another part of New Jersey's punitive damages statute constituted substantive law because "the review mandated by New Jersey's Punitive Damages Act would undoubtedly 'have so important an effect upon the fortunes of one or both of the litigants that failure to enforce it would be likely to cause a plaintiff to choose the federal court.'") (quoting Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 468 n. 9 (1965)). This Court has applied the punitive damages bifurcation statute in a similar case.

Although I find Dubinsky's report to be insufficient to demonstrate lost profits damages for the reasons discussed herein, I note that other courts have not required an itemized list of damages on a claim-by-claim basis. See, e.g., Inter Med. Supplies v. EBI Med. Sys., 975 F.Supp. 681, 687 (D.N.J.1997) ("[R]equiring plaintiffs to itemize their damages as to each legal claim would be unnecessarily confusing to the jury and would risk a double, or even treble, recovery."). As set forth above, whether a party can recover damages for lost profits depends on "whether the evidence on lost profits provides enough information under the circumstances to permit the fact finder to reach a reasonably certain determination of the amount of gains prevented."

The prohibition on untimely objections to jury instructions imposed by Rule 51 is, however, not absolute. Courts in this circuit have held that "notwithstanding a party's failure to object under Rule 51, [a] court may still grant a new trial on [the basis of an incorrect jury instruction] if `the error is fundamental and highly prejudicial.'" Inter Medical Supplies, Inc. v. EBI Medical Systems, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 681, 697 (D.N.J. 1997) (quoting Wagner v. Firestone Tire Rubber Co., 890 F.2d 652, 658 (3d Cir. 1989)). In order for a court to excuse a failure to comply with Rule 51, it must be apparent that failure to correct the error would result in a "miscarriage of justice."