of wrongdoing, it is not probative enough to meet Todd’s burden of production that Montoya acted in a negligent manner or that Montoya proximately caused his injury. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d at 528-29 (“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 within 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. at 646-47 (<HOLDING>). It is the proverbial scintilla of evidence
recognizing high probative value of evidence providing conduct that was part of the very act charged recognizing that rule 608b prior bad acts evidence admissible as probative of truthfulness is subject to rule 403 balancing recognizing that while the evidence at issue was admissible under rule 407 its probative value was minimal holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence