407, they may seek to introduce it at that time. At the present time, I rule only that the evidence constitutes a subsequent remedial effort by Terminix, and that it may not be introduced to support plaintiffs’ claim of the dangerousness of the termiticides. B. Evidence that the Termiticides are No Longer Distributed in the United States The defendants argue that evidence that the termiticides are no longer distributed in the United States should be excluded either as irrelevant under Fed.R.Evid. 401 or excessively prejudicial under Fed.R. Evid. 403. Much of the evidence relating to the withdrawal of termiticides from the United States market has been excluded in other litigation. See Dine v. Western Exterminating Co., Slip Op., Civil Action No. 86-1857 (D.D.C. March 18, 1988) (<HOLDING>); Rabb v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 677 F.Supp.
recognizing the probative value of objective and reliable hearsay evidence holding that an agreement providing this agreement when signed by author and publisher will cancel and supercede the previous agreements  was clearly intended to terminate an earlier agreement holding that evidence of velsicols agreement with the epa to cancel certain uses of chlordane and heptachlor was not probative of the carcinogenicity of these termiticides holding that voting agreement that did not comply with certain notice requirements of the act was enforceable because all of the shareholders knew of the agreement and participated in the transaction in question holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with