Apted

MEMORANDUM *

Following a jury verdict resulting in a judgment declaring his insurance policy void, Daniel Apted appeals the district court’s denial of his pre-trial motions in limine, renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, and motion to alter judgment. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not set them out in detail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Apted contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his pre-trial motions to exclude evidence relating to 1) the inaccurate financial documents which he submitted to Key Bank, 2) his efforts to increase his insurance coverage prior to the fire, and 3) the cause of the fire. We disagree. The Key Bank documents and Apted’s attempt to increase his coverage were probative of intent and the absence of mistake. Apted has failed to demonstrate that the probative value of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Moreover, we decline to consider whether Allstate failed to authenticate the Key Bank documents because Apted waived this challenge by failing to object at trial. Masayesva v. *626 Hale, 118 F.3d 1371 , 1379 (9th Cir.1997).…