Delgado v. Pawtucket Police Department Ex Rel. Wunschel, 668 F.3d 42

Plaintiffs are administrator of Goncalves's estate and his surviving children, bringing state-law tort claims after a high-speed pursuit by Pawtucket officers led to a fatal crash.
Defendants removed the case to federal court on federal-question grounds; federal claims were dismissed, leaving state-law claims in federal court.
During plaintiffs' case, Pereira—key eyewitness—was imprisoned; plaintiffs sought to admit Pereira's deposition under Rule 32(a)(4)(C) in lieu of live testimony.
District court precluded Pereira's deposition and denied a continuance to secure live testimony, and then granted defendants' Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on recklessness.
The district court implicitly decided the pursuit policy may or may not apply and held plaintiffs failed to prove recklessness under Rhode Island law, leading to affirmance on appeal.
The First Circuit analyzed supplemental jurisdiction, evidentiary rulings on Pereira, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict of recklessness under Rhode Island law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly retained supplemental jurisdiction	Delgado argues de novo remand review is required	Court acted within its discretion to retain jurisdiction	Yes, within discretion to retain jurisdiction
Rule 32(a)(4)(C) applicability to Pereira's deposition	Pereira was unavailable due to imprisonment, so deposition admissible	Rule requires unavailability due to listed conditions; imprisonment alone not enough	Precluded; Pereira not unavailable under rule
Denial of continuance to secure Pereira's live testimony	Continuance would have allowed live testimony via habeas corpus	District court acted reasonably given prior discussions and opportunity to arrange appearance	No abuse of discretion; continuance denied
Judgment as a matter of law on recklessness under Rhode Island law	Policy violations can show recklessness; Seide supports jury question	Policy violations are not per se recklessness; defense version showed no recklessness	Judgment as a matter of law affirmed; no reasonable jury could find recklessness based on the record; Seide not controlling here

Roche v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 249 (1st Cir.1996) (supplemental jurisdiction persists after federal claim dismissal)
In re Pharmaceutical Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 588 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.2009) (interpretation of procedural rules de novo when central to issue)
Daigle v. Maine Med. Ctr., Inc., 14 F.3d 684 (1st Cir.1994) (deposition testimony admissibility; unavailable rule interpretation)
Seide v. State, 875 A.2d 1259 (R.I.2005) (policy violation may be evidence of recklessness; not per se)