Whether a Motion for a New Trial, FRCP Rule 59, should had been granted?

QUESTION PRESENTED A jury trial was conducted on the charges of Negligence and Premise Liability against the Respondent. During the trial, actions of misrepresentations, misconducts and a malfunctioning court reporter due to transcript being transcribed and prepared in violations to Judiciary Policy that resulted in incomplete and lacked of important details about facts which polluted the truth before jury deliberation. A complaint was filed to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to address Petitioner’s concerns of the malfunctions which compromised the validity and credibility of the transcripts. Another disturbance ' and misconduct, was respondent’s failure to call its key witness, who was subpoenaed to appear to testify for reason of her knowledge of the spoliation of evidence and violation of the store policy when there is an incident. Other respondent’s witness came very late and added more disturbances. Due to the irregularities, the proceeding did not achieve a court atmosphere and condition conducive to a fair trial wherein decision or judgment should be made under Due Process or fundamental fairness. But the court had denied on Petitioner’s timely filed Motion for a New Trial, FRCPRule 59. It is an application for a retrial of the facts of the case. Castellaw v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97 (31 SE 801); Buchanan v. dames, 134 Ga. 475 (1) (68 SE (72).The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals also did not give the opportunity for Oral Argument, though requested on the beginning of the appeal and this case sit for almost one year unreviewed but finally decided a Per Curiam with Affirmation to Judgment. As a result of its unnecessary and improperly broad analysis, the trial court and Eight Circuit generated a fractured but precedential opinion that will cause confusion and inconsistencies for countless litigants in the future. QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether a Motion for a New Trial, FRCP Rule 59, should had been granted? 2. Whether Jury's Verdict, went against Preponderance of Evidence due the Irregularities of the Proceeding wherein Substantial Evidences/ facts have been unfairly reviewed due to Miscarriage of Justice? 3. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court, conduct a thorough and fair examination and evaluation as the laws apply and review the damages and penalty in the justification this case. Amendment XIV, states that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within tts jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. i