underlying the lawsuit). While this evidence may create a weak inference of wrongdoing, it is minimally probative. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498, 528-29 (6th Cir.1996) ("Northwest’s rewiring of the CAWS is circumstantial evidence, if only of a weak and suspect sort, that the CAWS as it existed at the time of the accident was not foolproof.”). Even if the evidence is not technically with rule 407's scope: (i) rule 407’s underlying concerns are persuasive when evaluating the probative value of the evidence; and (ii) the circumstances of Montoya’s resignation in light of the other evidence in the record make the inference of wrongdoing one can draw from his resignation a weak one. See Gray v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 82 Fed.Appx. 639, 646-47 (10th Cir.2003) (unpublished)(<HOLDING>). 6 . Montoya asserts, relying on Wilks'
recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice recognizing that while the evidence at issue was admissible under rule 407 its probative value was minimal recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged