spirit of our procedures to permit counsel to be sandbagged by such tactics or the trial court to be so put in error. Id. at 1549 (quoting Quinn v. SW Wood Prods., Inc., 597 F.2d 1018, 1025 (5th Cir.1979)). Strict identity of issues, however, is not required. So long as they are “closely related,” such that opposing counsel and the trial court may be deemed to have notice of the deficiencies asserted by the moving party, the purposes of the rule will be satisfied. Id. If “the new and old grounds vary greatly,” we may not rely upon the new grounds to reverse a district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion. Ross, 146 F.3d at 1289. In that situation, the scope of review is limited to plain error. See Sims’ Crane Serv., Inc. v. Ideal Steel Prods., Inc., 800 F.2d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). While two of the grounds in Walgreens’ later
holding that a motion for directed verdict should be granted if there is no evidence on which a jury could legally base a verdict for damages against the moving party holding that when no motion for directed verdict is made a rule 50b motion can be granted only if plain error is shown recognizing that a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally predicate a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party holding that a posttrial motion is not required after a grant of a directed verdict holding a directed verdict motion stating specific grounds is a prerequisite for a subsequent motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict