Component due to improper accounting. Because questions of fact remain, Global’s Motion for Summary Judgment on this question is DENIED. To support its position, Global relies on a report from a GTECH economic expert, who concludes that GTECH owes Global $257,845 under the Deferred Payment Component. (Pl.’s SUF ¶ 105.) This GTECH report bolsters, to some extent, the report of Global’s economic expert, who also concluded that GTECH owes Global under the Deferred Payment Component. Global misconstrues the import of GTECH’s expert report. While clearly the report is an admission by GTECH, the expert report does not by itself conclusively establish that GTECH breached the Deferred Payment Component. Bianco v. Hultsteg AB, No. 05 C 0538, 2009 WL 347002, at *12 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 5, 2009) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, GTECH counters both of these
holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that admission of prior statement constituted error but was harmless when other admissible evidence established the same fact holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice