from the drug’s somnolence level and toward the rate at which customers discontinued using the drug because of somnolence effects. The manuals also indicated that eetirizine, Zyrtec’s active ingredient, does “not cause sedation.” The district court found this evidence insufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction and denied Schering’s motion. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Standards of Review We review a district court’s evi-dentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Phoenix Assocs. III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir.1995). “Either an error of law or a clear error of fact may constitute an abuse of discretion.” Charette v. Town of Oyster Bay, 159 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir.1998); see also Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (<HOLDING>). An evidentiary ruling that is an abuse of
holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous holding that a factual finding may be set aside if it rests on an erroneous view of the law holding that judgments restfing on an erroneous view of the law may be set aside on that basis