Nos. 23-1458, 23-1884

BORIS O. BERGUS,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

AGUSTIN M. FLORIAN,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Gelpí and Rikelman, Circuit Judges, and Katzmann,* Judge.

T. Christopher Donnelly, with whom Pietro A. Conte and Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP were on brief, for appellant.

Richard A. Goren, with whom The Law Office of Richard Goren was on brief, for appellee.

October 22, 2024

* Of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. Agustin Florian and Boris Bergus were once colleagues in Bergus's medical practice and eventually became co-investors in a company run by Florian's brother-in-law. Bergus ultimately made two separate investments in the company, purchasing stock in both 2012 and 2014.

Years later, after their relationship had soured, Bergus sued Florian in federal court, alleging that Florian had omitted material information about the two investments and thereby violated the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act ("MUSA"). The trial featured a modest number of exhibits and only three witnesses: Bergus, Florian, and Florian's brother-in-law. The district court precluded Florian from cross-examining Bergus about conduct that led a state medical board to conclude in 2013 that Bergus had repeatedly misrepresented his medical credentials in a way that was intended to deceive, or had the tendency to deceive, the public. At the end of trial, the jury returned a verdict in Bergus's favor with respect to the 2012 investment only.

On appeal, Florian challenges several of the district court's rulings, including its limitation on his cross-examination of Bergus. He points out that this was not a document-heavy case and thus the trial boiled down to whether the jury believed Bergus, who bore the burden of proof as the plaintiff. He also notes that he sought to cross-examine Bergus about conduct highly probative of truthfulness, given the medical board's findings of deception

- 2 - and Bergus's agreement to a reprimand and probation based on these findings.

We agree that Bergus's credibility was pivotal to this case and that Florian sought to cross-examine Bergus about conduct that was probative of Bergus's character for truthfulness, as permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). Because we cannot discern from the record why the district court decided to preclude even brief cross-examination about the facts underlying the medical board order, we conclude that the court abused its discretion. We therefore vacate the judgment in part and remand for a new trial on the 2012 investment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Facts1

We begin with some details the parties do not dispute before proceeding to the highly contested issues at trial. As the record demonstrates, the district court took a proactive approach to sorting out the facts and claims in this case.

Bergus and Florian are both doctors. After they met in 2011, Florian began working on a contractual basis at Bergus's

Because our decision focuses on an evidentiary ruling, we 1 review the record objectively and "present the facts relevant to the . . . ruling[] in a 'balanced' manner." Lech v. von Goeler, 92 F.4th 56, 61 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Velaz