to Deckers. No plain error having been shown, we decline to address Deckers’ argument that plaintiffs’ secrets were not trade secrets. 2. Challenges to the Form of the Verdict Because the parties could not agree on how to word a special verdict form, the district court created a form on its own, essentially a general verdict form. Deckers contends now that there were several errors inherent in the verdict form. These are not claims about the way the jury answered the form’s interrogatories, rather these are allegations that errors were built into the form itself. We hold that Deckers waived these contentions by failing to raise them until after the jury had rendered its verdict and was discharged. Cf. Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss and Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1331 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The district court gave the parties ample
holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that a party waived its objection to the jurys verdict by not objecting to an alleged inconsistency prior to the dismissal of the jury holding a party failed to preserve an objection to the jury instructions where the party objected prior to the court instructing the jury but not after holding that party waived an objection to choice of law