## Facts

- Gregory and Tracey Cummings traveled in a 1995 Pontiac Grand Am in rural Oklahoma; Mr. Cummings drove and Mrs. Cummings sat in the front passenger seat.
- The vehicle ran a partially obscured stop sign at a T-intersection, left the roadway, crossed a ditch, and entered a field.
- Other occupants suffered minor injuries; Mrs. Cummings suffered a thoracic vertebra compression fracture causing paraplegia.
- The Cummings alleged defective seat and seat-belt design and inadequate warnings caused Mrs. Cummings’s injury.
- General Motors (GM) argued the injury resulted from restraint misuse, including that Mrs. Cummings was reclined at impact.
- A jury returned a verdict for GM; the district court entered judgment.
- During the case, the parties litigated extensive discovery disputes involving document production, test materials, expert disclosures, and electronic discovery.
- About eight months after trial, the Cummings sought Rule 60(b) relief based on allegedly withheld GM videos later obtained from other litigation; the district court denied the motion as untimely and lacking proof of misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the Cummings preserved a broad sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and, if not, whether the verdict warranted reversal under the limited plain-error/manifest-injustice standard.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in discovery management, including refusals to compel broader production or database access and refusals to sanction GM.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Rule 60(b) relief based on later-obtained GM videos as untimely and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence of fraud or discovery misconduct.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for GM.
- The court held the Cummings did not preserve a broad sufficiency challenge because their Rule 50 motion addressed only misuse, not liability generally.
- Even assuming review were available, the record contained conflicting evidence supporting both sides, defeating any claim of plain error or manifest injustice.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery where requests were imprecise, overbroad, or burdensome, including requests for expansive database access.
- The court affirmed denial of Rule 60(b) relief because the motion was not filed within a reasonable time and the Cummings failed to show clear and convincing evidence that GM wrongfully withheld discoverable material or prevented a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- A party must preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by timely and specifically stating grounds in a Rule 50 motion; arguments not raised are generally waived on appeal.
- Unpreserved sufficiency challenges are reviewed, if at all, only for plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
- District courts have broad discretion to manage discovery, including limiting overbroad or burdensome requests and controlling access to proprietary electronic systems.
- A responding party is generally not required to produce items outside the reasonably construed scope of the requesting party’s document requests.
- Rule 60(b) motions must be filed within a reasonable time; relief for fraud or misconduct requires clear and convincing evidence that the conduct prevented full and fair presentation of the case.
- Relief based on newly discovered evidence requires diligence and a showing that the new material likely would change the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit left the defense verdict intact, holding that the plaintiffs’ broad sufficiency challenge was not preserved under Rule 50, the trial record did not justify reversal under any limited review, the district court’s discovery controls were within its discretion, and post-trial relief under Rule 60(b) was properly denied as unreasonably delayed and unsupported by the required proof of misconduct or outcome-changing new evidence.


Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944 (10th Cir. 2004)