L.P., 232 F.R.D. 692, 693 (M.D.Fla.2005) (refusing to require production of employer’s employment records pursuant to an overbroad subpoena as overly intrusive and unnecessary where defendant failed to provide any reason to suspect the plaintiffs credibility). Second, providing factually inaccurate information in employment documents, or having a poor employment history, will not, in and of itself, necessarily, be admissible at trial or be likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)(1); see also Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 382 F.Supp.2d 536, 540-41 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “extrinsic evidence is not
holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper holding that evidence of pri or poor work performance was inadmissible propensity evidence under rule 404b holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding for evidence to be admissible under rule 404b its relevance must not include bad character or propensity as a necessary link in the inferential chain