A consulting firm sued a cable television franchise under federal diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract based on the firm's provision of technical services. At trial, a witness testified to a conversation she had overhead between both companies' representatives. The conversation was unfavorable to the cable TV franchise, so it raised a timely hearsay objection, which the court overruled. During the parties' closing arguments, the consulting firm's attorney referred to facts that the judge had excluded from evidence. The cable TV franchise's attorney objected to this part of the closing argument as an impermissible comment on matters not in evidence. The judge overruled the objection. The jury then rendered a verdict for the consulting firm. One day after the verdict, the cable TV franchise filed an affidavit from a witness swearing that she had observed the consulting firm's attorney attempting to influence one of the jurors.

Which one of the following grounds, if legally supported, would be improper to raise in the cable TV franchise's Rule 59 motion for a new trial?

(A)

The judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence.

(B)

The post-trial affidavit supports attorney misconduct.

(C)

Insufficient evidence supported the consulting firm's breach of contract claim.

(D)

The consulting firm attorney's closing argument commented on matters not in evidence.