See id. at 38-41 (testifying that each of the plaintiffs were part of, or had "more or less direct responsibility” over, the work crews involved in the incident). However, these rationales directly conflict with those previously relied upon. At the NLRB proceedings, for instance, Mr. Gourguechon explained that Mr. Bell was fired because of his "rough” "bedside manner,” R.70 at 64; that Mr. Gaffney was fired for not following the "chain of command,” id. at 35; that Mr. Trundy and Mr. Doncet were fired to get a "different group of people, different skills” in the engine room, id. at 44, 46; and that Mr. Goodridge was fired because it was "time to make a change in the crew,” id. at 53. 32 . Cf. Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 996 (9th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Unlike the party in Los Angeles News,
holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding that the defendants waived their objection to the imposition of statutory penalties on the basis of contributory infringement by a not raising the objection in their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law posttrial and b calculating statutory damages on the basis of contributory infringementf  in this same filing holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection holding that party waived an objection to choice of law