After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We readily conclude that the evidence amply justified the jury instruction submitting to the jury the issue of the government standard defense. The express language of the federal standard indicates that it was designed to prevent the type of harm that allegedly occurred — i.e., tread separation. Moreover, the express language of the federal standard indicates that it was intended to apply as well to radial tires. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit into evidence the 2002 bulletin concerning the federal standard and the 2007 revision thereof.
We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the scope of discovery. With respect to the district court’s decision declining to admit into evidence the “adjustment data,” we conclude that the plaintiff did not preserve that issue for appeal. Alternatively, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Other arguments raised on appeal are rejected without need for further discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.