from which Gottstein now appeals. DISCUSSION 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it characterized the Alaskan subpoenas as a “sham” and found that Gottstein aided and abetted Egiiman’s violation of the protective order Gottstein challenges the district court’s factual determination that the subpoenas he caused to be served on Egilman were a “pretense.” He also contests the district court’s closely related finding that he aided and abetted the violation of CMO-3. We review such factual conclusions for abuse of discretion, “which may be found where the Court, in issuing the injunction, relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact or an error of law.” Knox v. Salinas, 193 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir.1999); see also In re Complaint of Messina, 574 F.3d 119, 128 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
holding that we will not overturn a denial of a rule 59 motion absent an abuse of discretion holding that we will overturn the factual findings of the district court only where we have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that we need not overturn trial court ruling where it did not harm the plaintiff and its resolution would not alter the outcome holding that we must have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed before reversing a factual finding for clear error internal quotation omitted