course of action with respect to its short positions,” Aristocrat Leisure, 618 F.Supp.2d at 307, evidence relating to the Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies is particularly probative of the reasonableness of the Consequential Damages Parties’ actions. Therefore, because evidence of Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies has some “tendency” to make the reasonableness of Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging actions “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence,” such evidence is relevant. Fed.R.Evid. 401. To the extent that the Non-Consequential Damages Parties seek to proffer evidence not relating to their hedging strategies, that testimony is not relevant and will be cut-off by the Cou L 490740, at *3 (D.Conn. Mar.2, 2000) (<HOLDING>). The Bondholders also argue that allowing some
holding that any probative value of bolstered testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice confusion of issues or misleading the jury quoting  90403 fla stat holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction