In West v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 803 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2015) (No. 14-2168), plaintiff received injuries making a “hard landing” after his helicopter’s engine flamed out in mid-flight.  Plaintiff sued the helicopter manufacturer for negligence, but lost at a jury trial.  After trial, plaintiff learned that defendant had not disclosed during discovery information concerning a circuit design error in the engine of the helicopter, and filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).  The district court placed the burden on plaintiff to prove in connection with that motion that the disclosure of information withheld likely would have made a difference in the trial’s outcome, concluded that plaintiff failed to make that showing, and denied relief.  On appeal, the First Circuit reversed, ruling that the district court should have imposed on the defendant the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the withheld information would not have made a difference at trial.  Consequently, the case was remanded to the district court to rehear the Rule 60(3) motion and apply the proper standard.