projections, forecasts, and assumptions therein to be reliable.” However, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, these excerpts from the record do not contradict the District Court’s ultimate findings. The record amply supports the District Court’s concern that, although DeRamus was generally aware of the circumstances under which the SBP was created and the purposes for which it was used, he lacked critical information that would be necessary for Eaton to effectively cross-examine him. An expert’s “lack of familiarity with the methods and the reasons underlying [someone else’s] projections virtually preclude[s] any assessment of the validity of the projections through cross-examination.” TK-7 Corp. v. Estate of Barbouti 993 F.2d 722, 732 (10th Cir.1993); compare Autowest, 434 F.2d at 566 (<HOLDING>). Here, DeRamus knew that the SBP was presented
holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern holding that projections of company officials were admissible where such officials set out at length the bases from which they derived their figures and consequently the opposing party was able to crossexamine them vigorously holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities