sanction do conflict with Federal Rule 68 in cases where Rule 68 allows for recovery of costs — namely, when a plaintiff obtains a judgment, but the judgment “is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 68(d). This is so even when the state rule provides for recovery of costs, fees or sanctions that are not available under Federal Rule 68. Gil de Rebollo v. Miami Heat Assoc., 137 F.3d 56, 66 (1st Cir.1998) (“[Puerto Rico] Rule 35.1 and [Federal] Rule 68 both ostensibly apply to this case and would result in a different award. The two rules are in ‘direct collision’ despite the fact that they are not ‘perfectly coextensive’ because Rule 68 is ‘sufficiently broad to cover the point in dispute.’ ”); cf. Aceves v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). However, none of the cases cited above
recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that pleading rules are substantive holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery holding that the federal rules of civil procedure apply in diversity eases where they are on point unless they both directly conflict with state law and are invalid under the constitution or the rules enabling act