May a federal district court consistent with the law-of-the-case doctrine grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) to respondents after petitioner had submitted her case in chief to the jury when the court before trial had already ruled that it was up to the jury to evaluate the evidence proving respondents were negligent?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. May a federal district court consistent with this Court’s “the law of the case” doctrine grant judgment asa matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) to respondents after petitioner had submitted her case in chief to the jury when the court before trial had already ruled that it was “up to the jury to evaluate [this] evidence” proving respondents were negligent? 2. Is due process denied and Rule 50(a) protocol undermined when the court of appeals fails to harmonize the district court’s pretrial ruling declaring that petitioner’s expert evidence of respondents’ negligence was fit for a jury’s evaluation with its later dismissal of her claims during trial without identifying what new evidence had been adduced or what facts had changed to warrant this new ruling?