that Bosch’s conduct was “wanton, reckless or malicious.” JA. 454. We find that, regardless of merit of Sanders’ complaints, any error in the district court’s instruction was harmless because, even under the preponderance standard, the jury would not have concluded that punitive damages were appropriate. There is scant evidence that any Bosch employees ever listened to any of Sanders’ conversations and no evidence that the substance of any of Sanders’ conversations was ever disseminated. Nor does the evidence suggest that the recording was ill-motivated. We do not believe, therefore, that the judge’s instructions to the jury, whether they were erroneous or not, in any way affected the jury’s resolution of the punitive damages question. Cf. Deal v. Spears, .supra, 980 F.2d at 1159 (<HOLDING>). IV. The judgment of the district court is
holding that where there was no evidence that taped conversations were repeated verbatim or that anything but vague substance was revealed district court did not err in denying punitive damages noted the court it is difficult to conceive of a case less appropriate for punitive damages than this one holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding that punitive damages are not fines holding that even if the trial court had erred in denying the defendants motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages the error was harmless because the jury found in favor of the defendant and never reached the punitive damages claims holding a court may not award punitive damages