USCA1 Opinion

March 10, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-1392
BERTA MAIDANIK SIGUEL AND EDWARD N. SIGUEL,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Edward N. Siguel on brief pro se.

________________
Craig Browne, Daniel H. Conroy and
____________
________________
brief for appellee.

Goldstein & Manello, P.C.

__________________________

____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
___________
appellant

Edward

This appeal

Siguel

to

concerns an

collect

benefits

attempt by
under

an

accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy issued by

appellee Allstate Life Insurance Co. to Siguel's father.

district court

entered judgment

Civ. P. 52(c) after

for Allstate under

Siguel presented his evidence at

The

Fed. R.
a non-

jury trial.1
I.
_
In
Allstate;
insured

he

1986 Siguel obtained

listed

his

father, Isidoro

and his

mother, Berta

According

to

the

sustained

an injury

received

Siguel

to

while getting

insured,
his left

off

went

to

physician, Dr.
left forearm.

the

forearm

in

Argentina,

from a

bus.

This

blow

he

accident

On February 10, 1988, the

out-patient

clinic

an abscess on

where

the insured's

Later that same day, the insured died.

filed a claim in June 1988 on behalf of his

for benefits

Siguel submitted
of death

hospital

as

the beneficiary.

while

a public

Pattin, drained

Siguel
mother

Siguel,

Siguel, as

occurred sometime in January 1988.

insured

the insurance policy from

under the

policy.

a death certificate which

as cardiorespiratory arrest; he

As proof

of loss,

listed the cause

also submitted two

____________________
1. Rule 52(c) provides that "[i]f during a trial without a
jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and the court
finds against the party on that issue, the court may enter
judgment as a matter of law against that party . . . ."
-2-

reports

prepared

by

Dr.

Pattin

insured's death was accidental.

December 27,

1989.

concluded that the

accident

It had

stated

cause of death

the

investigation and

was not the result

insurance policy.

filed an action

that

Allstate denied the claim on

conducted an

as defined in the

1991, Siguel

which

in federal

of an

On March 28,

district court

on

behalf of his mother as the beneficiary.2

The parties
tried

in

January

Siguel's evidence
accidental.
cause

engaged in discovery and

1994.

district

and argument

court

first heard

that his father's

death was

It then made Rule 52(c) findings concerning the

of death.

The court

accident had occurred on

that Siguel

The

the case was

initially

the bus.

had not demonstrated

evidence

that the

accident

death.

Specifically, the

causal connections,
abscess and,

death.

The court further

However, the

court

in the

concluded

the

stated that the

of the

insured's

there were

the accident on

second, between

an

court found

by a preponderance

had resulted

first, between

and the

determined that

no

the bus

abscess and

the

existence of the

link was not a matter that could be proved without the aid of
expert testimony.

____________________
2. At this time, Berta Siguel was represented by her son and
another attorney.
For ease of reference, Siguel will be
treated as the plaintiff except where his status as both an
attorney and party is the issue.
-3-

The court then

medical treatment

of the abscess itself

constituting an accident
stated
could

rejected Siguel's

that there

theory that

was faulty, thereby

which caused the death.

was insufficient

the

The court

evidence from

which it

find that the draining of the abscess was an accident.

Again, the court opined that it required expert

establish that

there was something wrong

and that this error was responsible for

The court

also rejected

father did not expect

court described

with the treatment

the insured's death.

Siguel's argument that

to die, his death was

this legal

II.

because his

accidental; the

theory as incorrect

any support in the caselaw.

testimony to

and without

__
On appeal,
erred by
denying
Allstate

Siguel claims

(A) ruling on the merits

Siguel's
to

admissions;

motion for

file late

mother; (E) denying Siguel

district court

in favor of Allstate; (B)

new

responses

(D) disqualifying

that the

to

trial; (C)

permitting

Siguel's request

Siguel from

for

representing his

(who the court allowed

to appear

pro se after his mother assigned her claims to him) the right
to have

a lawyer assist

him at trial;

and (F) refusing

to

assess costs or sanctions against Allstate.

A.

The Merits.
__________

As with
coverage,

we

any case involving

start with

the language

questions of insurance
of

the policy.

It

-4-

provides
accident.

benefits

if the

person insured

is injured

Injury or injured is defined as meaning

bodily

injury

caused by
an accident
_________________________
occurring while the insurance is in force

in an

and which injury results within 365 days

after the date of the accident, directly
and independently of all other causes, in
death or any other "Loss" covered by the
Policy. (emphasiss added).
If an individual
conveyance the

is injured
benefit

while a passenger

is $200,000.

on a

In other

public

cases

the

benefit is $60,000.
Siguel first argues that the district court
have used the
this

kind

erroneously

"accidental results" approach

of

insurance

used an

latter test, "the

contract

"accidental

and

should

to interpreting
that

means" test.3

means which produced death

_____

it

instead

Under

the

or injury must

have been unintentional."

Wickman v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins.

_______
_______________________

Co.,
___

(1st Cir.) (emphasis added), cert.

_____

908 F.2d 1077, 1085

denied, 498 U.S. 1013 (1990).

______

A results approach focusses on

the unexpected

injury or death

nature of the

"where the death is

itself; thus,

not designed and not anticipated

by the

deceased, though it is in consequence of some act voluntarily

done
2d
__

by him, it is accidental death."

10 Couch on Insurance
__________________

41:29, at 44 (rev. ed. 1982).

____________________
3. The district court, with the consent of the parties,
applied Illinois and Massachusetts law to this insurance
contract, finding that there was no difference between the
law of the two jurisdictions.
-5-

Under both approaches, however, an accident must be

the proximate cause of the harm or loss.
Irrespective of whether or not it is
required that the means, as well as the
result, be accidental in origin, it has
been held that in determining whether or
not a recovery will be allowed . . . a
court may require that the accident be a
proximate cause of the injury or death,
regardless of the fact that the policy
may not set up this requirement.
1A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice
___________________________

362, at

482 (rev.

ed. 1981) (footnotes omitted); Couch on Insurance

__________________

41:12, at

16 ("In order to bring the harm sustained within the coverage

of an accident policy,
the

proximate

cause

it is necessary that the

of

the

harm

accident be

sustained.")

(footnote

omitted).
We
case

first note

that the

insurance policy

in this

in fact requires that death be "caused by an accident."

Second, the

courts of

both Illinois and

Massachusetts have

held that to obtain benefits under this kind of insurance, an

accident must be the proximate cause of death or injury.

See

___
Carlson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 76 Ill. App.
_______
______________________

2d 187, 196,

222 N.E.2d 363, 368 (1966) (where there is both a preexisting

illness

and

an accidental

injury,

"the

pivotal issue

whether the accidental injury was the proximate cause of

is
the

resulting loss"); Coleman v. American Casualty Co., 354 Mass.

_______
_____________________
762,

762, 237

N.E.2d

policy provides

22, 22

recovery for

(1968)
"loss

(where the

insurance

resulting directly

and

-6-

independently
injury,"

of

there must be

accidental fall,
the
must

all other

from

accidental bodily

evidence that but

for the insured's

the loss would

district court
show that

causes

did not err

his father's

not have occurred).

in determining

death was

Thus,

that Siguel

precipitated by

an

accident.
This also takes care
death to be

accidental all

of Siguel's argument that for

that is required

is that it

be

unexpected

from the

results

approach

result,

there

insured's

speaks
is

of

no

commentaries

that

sufficient,

without

point of
an

unexpected

indication

the

in

unexpected

more,

view.

the

Siguel

primarily

relies,

is

was observed standing outside

overpass

section

before the deceased

an

law

or

the

loss

is

interstate

Indeed,

Wickman, on which
_______

distinguishable.

deceased

of

case

coverage.

Siguel does not cite any cases so holding.

the

and unforeseen

nature of

to trigger

While

There

the

of a guardrail on an
highway.

fell to his death, he

Immediately

was holding on to

the guardrail with only one hand.

To determine whether this
held

that

factfinder

must begin

expectations" of the insured.

insufficient

evidence of

finder

of fact

person

in

then

the

"reasonable

908 F.2d at 1088.

If there is

with

the insured's

should then

the insured's

death was accidental, we

position

-7-

point of

ask whether
"would

view, the

a reasonable

have viewed

the

injury as highly likely to occur as a result of the insured's

intentional conduct."

Id.
___

Based on

these principles,

upheld

the magistrate's

should

have known that death was a likely consequence of his

intentional act in

finding that

standing on the outside

and holding on with one hand.

It
determine

knew or

of the guardrail

Id. at 1088-89.
___

is obvious that the issue in Wickman was how to

_______

when

inadvertent.

the

result

Focussing

regarding the outcome of

this

the deceased

we

context.

on

of

an

the

intentional
___________
insured's

act

is

expectations

his or her behavior makes

sense in

Here, though, there is no allegation that the

insured's conduct contributed in any way to his death.

Thus,

his expectations regarding when he would die are immaterial.

Siguel
expect

to die

drained.
during

after

Thus, he
a

medical

accidental.
for

similarly argues
having the

that his
abscess

asserts, when death

procedure,

it

father did
on his

arm

unexpectedly occurs

should

be

However, where medical treatment

an accident, the "mere fact that

left

not

viewed

as

is not sought

the insured dies . . .

as a result of such treatment does not constitute an accident

. . .

."

Couch on Insurance
__________________

41:113,

at 187.

There is no

evidence that, first, the accident on the bus resulted in the

abscess (the

reason treatment

there was anything wrong

was sought) or,

second, that

with the way in which

the draining

procedure was performed.

-8-

Siguel next asserts that because his father did not

expect

to

suffer

itself

was

cardiorespiratory

accidental.

Siguel

failure,

then

the

posits that

illness
if

the

cardiorespiratory failure was an accident, his father's death

was

accidental.

motion

Siguel first

set forth this

theory in his

for reconsideration filed after trial

ended.

In any

event, Siguel again ignores the requirement of causation.

For

example,

American Group, 44 Ill.

______________
the

insured

aneurysm.

fell
The

and

in

Scholle
_______

v.

Continental Nat'l
__________________

App. 3d 716, 358 N.E.2d

subsequently

court held

that

died

of

to recover,

893 (1976),
a

ruptured

plaintiff was

required to produce direct or circumstantial evidence to show

that there
the burst
897.

was a "causal relationship" between

aneurysm.

Thus,

44 Ill.

"[w]here there

App. 3d at 721,
is no

the fall and

358 N.E.2d at

occurrence which

may be

deemed

an accident,

it

necessarily follows

sustained as the consequence

coverage of an

that the

of a disease is not

accident policy."

harm

within the

10 Couch on Insurance
___________________

41:70, at 105 (footnotes omitted).

Siguel finally avers that

the district court erred

by requiring expert medical testimony to link the accident on

the

bus, or

death.
require
Siguel

the draining

of the

abscess, to

his father's

He argues that because the insurance contract did not

expert testimony,

the

court could

not demand

it.

fails to cite any law in support of this proposition.

-9-

Further, cases from

that experts
Wahls
_____
N.E.2d

both Illinois

routinely testify

and Massachusetts

reveal

concerning this issue.

v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 122

_____________________

Ill. App.

3d 309,

See
___
461

466 (1983); Carlson v. New York Life Ins. Co., supra,

_______
______________________ _____

76 Ill. App.

2d 187, 222 N.E.2d 363; Barnett v. John Hancock

_______
____________

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 304

____________________

Mass. 564,

24 N.E.2d

662 (1939);

Wrobel .v General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., 288

______
______________________________________________
Mass. 206, 192 N.E. 498 (1934).
B.

New Trial Motion.

________________

Siguel requested a new trial based on his assertion

that the district court

had misunderstood the law concerning

accidental death insurance contracts and because Allstate had

refused

to

turn

deposition of

over

to

Siguel

the

transcript

Dr. Pinto, the physician

the claim for Allstate in Argentina.

of

the

who had investigated

We review the denial of

a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.

deMars v.
______

Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 610 F.2d

___________________________________________________
55, 64 (1st Cir. 1979).
Based on
claim,

we

rejecting
of

find

that

the

court

was

the motion for a new trial.

Dr. Pinto's

First, Siguel
Dr.

our discussion of the

deposition, we

insured's death

have

helped him

was accidental.

-10-

fully

justified

in

As for the transcript

make only

does not specify what

Pinto would

merits of Siguel's

two observations.

information provided by
in establishing

Second,

that the

Siguel was present

at the deposition
testimony

and obtained a

prior to

the end

transcript of Dr.

of trial.

Pinto's

Thus, there

is no

excuse for Siguel's failure so to specify.

C.

Request for Admissions.

______________________

On March
this

case.

At

admissions,
Allstate
of the

28, 1991,
the

same

interrogatories,

Siguel filed the

time, he

served

and a

request

answers to the

request for

for documents.

interrogatories and the

Allstate states

the parties

agreed to

answer the
agreement

also had

withdraw

applied

on June

24,

to

the

responding

to the

and, on

and

request

1991, Allstate

motion

to

1991, filed

for

filed

it to

that the

admissions.
a motion

to

its failure to file

extend

admissions request.
July 3,

time for

Siguel claims

the matters deemed admitted by

responses

responses to

that it believed that

extend the

request for admissions.

never

Therefore,

motions

and Siguel agreed to extend the time for the filing

the document request.

timely

complaint in

the

time

for

Siguel

opposed the

a motion

for summary

judgment based on the

factual issues "admitted" by Allstate.

On

magistrate

September

motions.

18,

judge

granted

Allstate's

Fed.

R. Civ.

deemed admitted
after

unless a response

service of

longer

P. 36(a) provides

the

matter is

is filed "within

request, or

time as the court

that a

within

may allow .

30 days

such shorter

. . ."

or

The district

-11-

court

may not

only extend

the time

for filing

answers to

requests for admissions, but also may permit withdrawal of an

admission "when the presentation of
will be

subserved thereby

admission
will

fails to satisfy the

prejudice

defense on the
Siguel's

and

that

party

who obtained

court that withdrawal

merits." Fed. R. Civ. P.

the

36(b).

the
. . .

action

or

Contrary to

assertion, the focus under Rule 36(b) is not on the

party's explanations for

Rule.

See F.D.I.C. v.
___ ________

neglect.

the party

in maintaining

moving

1994).

the merits of the action

Thus,

its non-complaince with the

Prusia, 18 F.3d
______

Allstate is

not

Id. (citation omitted).

___

637, 640 (8th

required to
We review

Cir.

show excusable
a decision to

allow withdrawal of admissions for abuse of discretion.

Farr
____

Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 876 (1st Cir. 1990).
_________
__________

admitted
issue.

The magistrate judge found that

the matters deemed

were determinative

material facts

of

all the

in

As a result, "[t]he first half of the test is clearly

satisfied since the effect

of upholding the admissions would

be to practically eliminate

any presentation of the merits."

Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192, 193

____________
_________________________
(D.

Conn. 1976).

his

burden

We

thus turn to

of demonstrating

whether Siguel satisfied

prejudice

to

his ability

to

maintain the action.

Siguel
held

up the

claims

that Allstate's

proceedings and

"delaying tactics"

prevented him

from conducting

-12-

discovery for almost one

year.

that

he

during

this

time

Specifically, Siguel asserts

refrained

from

searching

for

witnesses

who

might

have

had

circumstances of the insured's

knowledge
death.

concerning

the

Siguel also complains

that he was unable to conduct discovery prior to the district

court's

decision

allowing

because he did not

withdrawal

know what facts

claims

are unavailing.

denied

coverage in

of

that

it

admissions

were in dispute.

Siguel knew from

1989

the

was

These

the time Allstate

alleging

that

his

father's death was not an accident and that this would be the
major issue in the case.
Further, prejudice under Rule 36(b) "relates to the
difficulty a party may face in proving its case, e.g., caused
____
by the unavailability of key witnesses, because of the sudden
need

to

obtain

evidence

with

previously

answered by

Associates
__________

v. General Elec. Co.,

_________________

1982).

There was

evidence here.

respect

to

the admissions."

no "sudden

He was on

the

Brook Village N.
_________________

686 F.2d 66,

need"

70 (1st Cir.

for Siguel

notice as of

trial

to obtain

June 24, 1991

Allstate was attempting to withdraw its admissions.

soon

questions

that

This was

after the case was initiated and quite a while before a

likely

would occur.

Finally, that

motion for summary judgment shortly after

withdrawal of
See F.D.I.C. v.
___ ________

the admissions does

filed a

Allstate requested

not constitute prejudice.

Prusia, 18 F.3d at 640.

______

-13-

Siguel

Given our finding,

we do not think that the district court erred

in refusing to

award costs to Siguel.

D.

Disqualification.
________________

In February

1992, Allstate

disqualified from representing his

he would be

a witness

magistrate judge
renewal.

She

moved

to have

Siguel

mother on the ground that

in the case.

On March

denied the motion without

23, 1992,

prejudice to its

acknowledged the financial hardship

attendant

upon securing new counsel and recognized that the proceedings

still

were

in the

discovery stage.

However,

she ordered

Siguel's mother to obtain co-counsel by May 18, 1992.

Siguel
Allstate

sought

then moved

for

reconsideration

disqualification motion.

The

until

secure

September

30

to

an extension
of

the

of time

denial

magistrate judge
co-counsel.

of

and
the

gave Siguel
Instead

of

complying with the magistrate judge's directive, Siguel filed

a motion to permit him to substitute himself as the plaintiff
in

the case.

motion,

the

In January 1993,
magistrate judge

and without ruling

on this

recommended disqualification.

She found that Siguel's role as a witness would conflict with

his duty to

his mother

effectively to represent

her.

The

district court agreed and adopted her recommendation.

-14-

We review a decision disqualifying an attorney from

representing
Fiandaca v.
________

his or

client for

Cunningham, 827 F.2d

__________

Disciplinary
that an

her

Rule 5-102(A),

abuse of

825, 828 (1st

359 Mass. 796

discretion.4
Cir. 1987).

(1972), provides

attorney who learns that he "ought to be called as a

witness on behalf of his client . . . shall withdraw from the

conduct of the
rule is

that if

trial . . .
a lawyer

."

One of the

appears both

reasons for this

as an advocate

and

witness, "he becomes more easily impeachable for interest and

thus may be a less effective witness."

Borman v. Borman, 378

______
______

Mass.

775,

786,

393

N.E.2d

847,

855

(1979)

(internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The

magistrate

judge

found

that

Siguel,

as

physician, had been involved in his father's health care from

1982

through 1987.

events that led

report

from Dr.

concluded

Pattin)

died.

had discussed

to the draining of
Pattin's

that the

insured's death.

He

with Dr.

the abscess and

handwritten notes.

accident

on

Pattin the

the

bus

had

This

typed a
report

caused

the

Dr. Pattin signed the report before he (Dr.

Further, Siguel

sole) participant in

was an

the attempt to gain

active (if

not the

benefits under the

insurance policy.

____________________
4. Allstate argues that Siguel has no standing to raise this
claim as his mother no longer is a party.
Because we find
that his claim fails on the merits, we do not address the
standing question.
-15-

Disqualification is appropriate

where an

attorney

is

intimately involved in

matter of the

action.

Lapidus, Inc.,
______________

v. Serody,
______

1171,

1174 (1985).

It

Also

1076, 1078
App. Ct.

(D.

is apparent from

474 N.E.2d

the foregoing that

facts underlying this

certain that he will

of relevance

Roy
___

Mass. 1980);

411, 415,

with most of the

action makes it almost

witness.

Supp.

19 Mass.

Siguel's familiarity

form the subject

American Hosp. Supply Corp. v.

____________________________

493 F.

Serody
______

the events that

is that the

be called as

information about

which Siguel probably would testify is not readily obtainable

from other sources.

See
___

Serody, 19 Mass. App. Ct. at

______

414,

474 N.E.2d at 1174.

In his role as a witness, Siguel's credibility will
be

an

issue.

admissability

of

For

example,

the

Dr.

Pattin's

report;

creating that report

Supreme

Judicial

disqualification
case

likely

witness.

will

to take

Siguel's

part

will not aid his mother's case.

Court

is the

pointed

out,

greatest where

turn on

argues that

and not to discovery

for this

contest

the

the

lawyer's

in

As the

need

the outcome

the

for

of the

credibility as

Borman, 378 Mass. at 786-87, 393 N.E.2d at 855.

______
Siguel

trial

parties

proposition.

DR

5-102(A)

proceedings.

only applies
He

to

cites no cases

It seems to us that if new counsel is

over at trial, the

sooner he or she

the case the better for the client.

is involved in

To wait until the eve of

-16-

trial

would hamper

result, we

the presentation

think,

contemplated by

Siguel also posits that

case, there was no

over

his

argument

misses

credibility of a

the disciplinary

chance of the

as

the

case --

since there was a non-jury

this

appearance

of the

The

rules.
trial in

judge being confused

both witness

mark.

not a

and

lawyer.

This

concern

is

the

lawyer who also appears as

over

a witness and a

judge assesses credibility just as the jury does.

Finally,
withdrawal

Siguel

worked a

See DR 5-101(B)(4),
___
alleges that

"substantial

she did not

We

out, the

do not agree.

case is

problem was

short

period of

requiring

hardship" on

his mother.

As

wherewithal to
the magistrate

not especially

complex and

the facts and the issues

time.

solved when the district

In

his

Specifically, he

have the financial

another attorney could master

comparatively

that

359 Mass. 796 (1972).

hire another attorney.

judge pointed

maintains

any

in a

event, this

court permitted Siguel

to accept the

assignment of

the claim from

his mother

and

granted Siguel's motion to appear pro se.

E.

Assistance of Counsel.
_____________________

Once the
se,

Siguel requested that he

assist

him in

Allstate had
the

court granted Siguel leave

trying

be allowed to

the case.

same opportunity.

The

hire counsel to

He argued

hired local counsel,

to appear pro

that just

he too should

as

be allowed

court denied the motion, stating

-17-

that
se."

it did not "permit a combination

Siguel argues that by so holding, the court improperly

created a new local rule.

28 U.S.C.
of

of a lawyer and a pro

Siguel's claim lacks merit.

1654 provides that

"[i]n all courts

the United States the parties may plead and conduct their

own cases

personally or by counsel

that

could

he

interpretation
"Section

not
of

1654 does

find
1654.

any

. . . ."

cases

in

The reason, we

not itself

Siguel admits
support

of

his

think, is plain.

confer any right

to `hybrid

representation.'"
863,

868 (2d

O'Reilly v.
________

Cir.

representation,

1982)
party

discharge any lawyer").

Siguel's request

New York Times Co.,

__________________

(to

claim

must

the

"clearly

right
and

692 F.2d
to

self-

unequivocally

Thus, the district court's denial of

to employ a

lawyer to

aid him was

not in

error.
F.

Costs and Sanctions.

___________________

Siguel
court
before

appeals from

trial

commenced.

filing pleadings

Siguel

sought

(1) failure to comply

and responding

failure to prepare a joint

file a

denial by

the

district

of a motion for sanctions (docket # 188) filed shortly

Allstate's alleged

for the

the

for

with deadlines for

to discovery

requests, (2)

stipulation concerning procedures

taking of depositions
joint statement of

sanctions

in Argentina, (3)

failure to

undisputed facts, (4)

failure to

prepare a list of documents it considered privileged, and (5)

-18-

failure to serve subpoenas in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P.

45.

Siguel

granting
to

an

also claims

that the

district court

erred in

an extension of time to Allstate to file its answer

amended

granted this

complaint;

motion on

Siguel asserts

that

the mistaken assumption

the

court

that Siguel

had not filed an opposition to an extension of time.

We have reviewed
cannot

find

discretion

that

the

it has in

Corp., 859 F.2d 1000,

_____
enjoy

a broad

the record and the parties' briefs and

district

court

these areas.

See
___

abused

of discretion

("[t]rial courts

in managing

affairs, including the conduct of discovery").

"[w]e

will intervene

in

showing

of

court's

discovery order

such

manifest injustice,

matters
that

was plainly

is,

Essentially,
that

clear

where the

lower

wrong and

186 (1st

with the district

Siguel failed to show

the way in
in

we agree

F.2d 179,

pretrial

Consequently,

only upon

substantial prejudice to the aggrieved party."

Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 871
______________________

broad

In re Recticel Foam
___________________

1006 (1st Cir. 1988)

measure

the

resulted in
Mack v. Great
____
_____
Cir. 1989).

court's conclusion

how he was

prejudiced by either

which the court managed the

pretrial proceedings

this case or by Allstate's alleged failure to comply with

the Federal Rules or court orders concerning discovery.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
________

-19-