the district court erred by admitting the balance sheet at all because such evidence is irrelevant to the setting of a punitive damages award. See Fed.R.Evid. 402. But under Nevada law, a defendant’s wealth is relevant to a jury’s determination of punitive damages. In Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. 372, 989 P.2d 882 (1999), the Nevada Supreme Court noted its consistent recognition that “[t]he wealth of a defendant is directly relevant to the size of [a punitive damages] award, which is meant to deter the defendant from repeating his misconduct as well as punish him for his past behavior.” Id. at 887 (quoting Ainsworth v. Combined Ins. Co., 104 Nev. 587, 763 P.2d 673, 677 (1988)); see also United Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 105 Nev. 504, 780 P.2d 193, 199 (1989) (<HOLDING>). To that end, the Nevada pattern jury
holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that evidence of a defendants financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position