safety.” While this particular piece of evidence does indicate a concern for safety rather than- “conscious indifference,” it does not in itself present overwhelming evidence contradicting the evidence provided by plaintiff. Oregon law makes no special exception relieving manufacturers from punitive damages if they issue product warnings. Second, Crown refers us to evidence properly excluded by the district court at trial, such as the military specifications and independent engineering reports. The jury cannot be said to have reached an erroneous verdict because of evidence that was not before it at trial. Evidence not admitted at trial cannot be used in a review of the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law. Elbert v. Howmedica, Inc., 143 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). As a result, Crown is left to support its
holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions should be promptly made thereby allowing the judge to rule on the matter when it is still fresh in his mind and that the motion should normally be deemed waived if it is not made prior to trial holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel holding that when ruling on a rule 50 motion the record should be taken as it existed when the trial was closed