Plaintiff is a photographer. He lends 20 of his photographs to Defendant, the administrator of a museum, to be featured in an upcoming exhibit. Plaintiff's contract with Defendant provides, "Museum agrees to return all photographs in a timely way and in the same condition in which they are received." After the exhibit ends, Defendant packs up the photographs and mistakenly puts the boxed photographs in a recycling bin, where they are compressed beyond recognition. Plaintiff sues Defendant in federal court for breach of contract, based on diversity jurisdiction, and seeks to recover the market value of his photographs. The evidence presented to the jury shows that none of Plaintiff's photographs has ever sold for more than $5,000 a print. The jury returns a verdict of $1 million. The judge agrees that Defendant ought to be held liable, but believes that the jury's award reflects an arithmetic error and that the damages were intended to be $100,000.

After judgment is entered on the jury's verdict for Plaintiff, Defendant moves for judgment as a matter of law. What is the best way for the judge to proceed?

(A)

The judge should grant the motion.

(B)

The judge on her own initiative should conditionally order a new trial unless Plaintiff agrees to a reduction of the damages to an amount set by the court.

(C)

The judge on her own initiative should order a new trial on the issue of damages only.

(D)

The judge should deny the motion and must accept the jury's damage award as a matter of the Seventh Amendment.