if relevant, is prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. (Int. Defs.’ Mem. 8-10.) Aristocrat responds that the jury cannot evaluate the reasonableness of Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging actions “in a vacuum” and that evidence of Non-Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies is probative of the reasonableness of the Consequential Damages Parties’ hedging strategies and necessary for the jury to evaluate objectively the Consequential Damages Parties’ actions. (Aristocrat’s Opp’n to Int. Defs.’ Mem. 6-7.) A factfinder may look to the actions of similarly situated parties where it is unclear what actions are commercially reasonable. See Granite Partners, L.P. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7874, 2002 WL 826956, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2002) (<HOLDING>); Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l
holding that the only relevant inquiry to determine whether a suspect was in custody is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation holding that the trial court erred in looking beyond the allegations of the complaint to determine whether a duty to defend arose holding that the only relevant inquiry in an in custody determination is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation holding that it may not holding that it is only by looking at how similarly situated entities acted in a similar situation that a factfinder may determine what was commercially reasonable