its discretion by not telling the jury: (1) the amount awarded to the Whites in compensatory damages; (2) that the first jury found Ford’s brake defect did not proximately cause the accident; and (3) that the Whites were 40 percent responsible for the accident. We decline to decide whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Ford’s 2002-03 Financial Statement and 2002 Annual Report, and we reject the remainder of Ford’s arguments. 1. Reasonable Relationship Instruction and Compensatory Damages Reasonable relationship. We reject Ford’s argument that due process requires the district court to instruct the jury that any award of punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages. See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 781-82 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Ford’s argument that Hilao was implicitly
holding the eighth amendment inapplicable to an award of exemplary damages holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages