Reynolds v. University of Pennsylvania, 483 F. App'x 726

Reynolds enrolled in UPenn's EMTM program in 2002 and claims he was told EMTM graduates would be Penn-Warton affiliated; later allegedly told he would be Penn Engineering graduate only and could not represent as Wharton alumnus.
Reynolds filed suit in state court in 2006 asserting contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, UTPCPL, and RICO; Penn removed to the ED Pa.
During discovery, Penn uncovered alleged alterations to Reynolds' relied-upon documents and learned Harsh's related evidence; Adobe deposition suggested Adobe Acrobat 6.0 not publicly available until May 2003.
Before the first trial, Reynolds moved to exclude potentially fraudulent exhibits; the district court granted the motion; the first trial favored Reynolds on breach but the court later granted a new trial for its erroneous exclusion of evidence.
In the second trial, the court excluded as Rule 407 subsequent remedial evidence (Town Hall meeting and website changes); the jury awarded Reynolds unjust enrichment, the court granted Penn JMOL, and Reynolds challenged sanctions for failure to admit a document; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the new trial was appropriate due to evidentiary exclusion under Rule 403	Reynolds (Penn) contends exclusion of Harsh/altered documents compromised credibility	Penn argues the Rule 403 ruling was proper and no substantial rights were affected	affirmed; no abuse of discretion in granting a second trial
Whether Rule 407 evidence (Town Hall/website) was correctly excluded	Reynolds seeks to admit subsequent remedial measures for impeachment	Penn argues Rule 407 bars such evidence to prove culpability and prevents confusion	affirmed; Rule 407 exclusion upheld and impeachment limitation proper
Whether JMOL on unjust enrichment was proper given an express contract	Reynolds contends a factual contract issue entitled restitution despite agreement	Penn contends PA law bars unjust enrichment where a contract exists	affirmed; existence of express contract precludes unjust enrichment claim
Whether sanctions for Reynolds' failure to admit were proper under Rule 37	Reynolds argues sanctions excessive for a reasonable belief in release date	Penn proved the release date was substantially important and Reynolds had no basis to deny	affirmed; sanctions upheld

Pastor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 487 F.3d 1042 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 407 disappointing contract meaning; subsequent changes not admissible to prove culpability)
Hickman v. Gem Insurance Company, 299 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002) (Rule 407 bars evidence of changes to contracts to prove liability)
Kenny v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 581 F.2d 351 (3d Cir. 1978) (Impeachment exception must be used cautiously under Rule 407)