“All relevant evidence is admissible,” pursuant to FRE 402. No prejudicial statement is identified, and the probative value of the statements are not “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,” FRE 403, in that they identify relocation needs. Declarant is testifying as to her assessment of the merits of moving her family from her residence, she “has personal knowledge” of these relocation activities.

There are no hearsay exceptions in the Federal Rules of Evidence that would allow for the admission of an order denying a motion for summary judgment. The Court’s order denying the defendants’ motions for summary judgment should also be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading of the jury. Factual testimony from a judge can unduly affect jurors who are likely to defer to findings and determinations made by an authoritive professional fact finder rather than determine the issues for themselves.

As plaintiff is no longer seeking liquidated damages, this passage is irrelevant (FRE 402). To the extent that the passage has any probative value, it is outweighed by its propensity to confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and unduly waste time (FRE 403). 65 179:9 – 179:21 Plaintiff agreed to withdraw this designation.

Any probative value that such references or testimony may arguably provide is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to SFA. FED. R. EVID. 403. GRANTED DENIED AGREED Case 6:07-cv-00067-LED Document 300 Filed 09/14/09 Page 21 of 22 -22- September 14, 2009 Respectfully submitted, SFA SYSTEMS, LLC By: /s/ David M. Pridham Andrew W. Spangler - LEAD COUNSEL Texas Bar No. 24041960 Spangler Law P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-9300 (903) 553-0403 (fax) spangler@spanglerlawpc.com David M. Pridham Law Office of David Pridham 25 Linden Road Barrington, Rhode Island 02806 (401) 633-7247 (401) 633-7247 (fax) david@pridhamiplaw.com Kip Glasscock Texas State Bar No. 08011000 Kip Glasscock P.C. 550 Fannin, Suite 1350 Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: (409) 833-8822 Fax: (409) 838-4666 kipglasscock@hotmail.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SFA SYSTEMS, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that this document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule

FRE 403. Case 5:10-cv-00369-IPJ Document 62 Filed 02/18/11 Page 11 of 13 1138620.1 12 Respectfully submitted this 18th day of February, 2011. /s/ Jason B. Tompkins

Accordingly, such arguments and evidence should be precluded because they are irrelevant under FRE 401. Furthermore, introduction of this evidence would create the risk of unfair prejudice and would be a waste of the Court's and the jury's and is therefore inadmissible under FRE 403. For the foregoing reasons, this motion should be granted.

) Mr. Coleman’s market impact opinions are speculative and prejudicial. Lippe, 288 B.R. at 686; In re Rezulin, 309 F. Supp. 2d at 543-44; Fed. R. Evid. 403. None of Mr. Coleman’s opinions are admissible. New York, New York Dated: October 5, 2018 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Valerie W. Ho__ Richard A. Edlin MetLife Building, 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Tel: (212) 801-9200 EdlinR@gtlaw.com Ian C. Ballon (Ballon@gtlaw.com) Nina D. Boyajian (BoyajianN@gtlaw.com) Valerie W. Ho (HoV@gtlaw.com) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 586-7700 Attorneys for Defendants Richard Prince, Blum & Poe, LLC, and Blum & Poe New York, LLC Case 1:16-cv-08896-SHS Document 134 Filed 10/26/18 Page 30 of 30

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that this e-mail – which does not address the label – indicates a belief of Dr. Sablinska that the label was inadequate is unsupported by the e-mail itself or any other document. Because this implication would unduly prejudice NPC and unnecessarily confuse the jury, this e-mail chain should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 403. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and exclude the noted documents.

Therefore, references to tattoos should be barred at trial because neither Tommy Morris’ tattoos, nor the tattoos of witnesses, are relevant to any issue in this case. Such references should 14 also be barred under FRE 403 because the unfair prejudice of that type of evidence is outweighed by any probative value it may have. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendants be barred from inquiring into, or at any time referring to, the stated matters.

For these reasons, allowing the Defendants to suggest that the error requirement of reissue was improper based upon Mr. Waraksa or Mr. Moscovitch's intent would be contrary to law and irrelevant, and would be unduly prejudicial and would certainly confuse the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403. Finally, as discussed in more detail in Plaintiffs' Response to Ergotron's Summary Judgment Motion for Invalidity, see Docket No. 494, a reissue application is proper if the 29 Case 2:06-cv-00272-LED Document 582 Filed 10/20/08 Page 29 of 33 PageID #: 19130 attomey failed to appreciate the scope of the claim.