not consider and weigh private interests which were properly before it. B. Forum Non Conveniens: Weighing of the Factors As described more fully below, in addition to erroneously concluding that its analysis must be limited to those private interest factors addressed by the state court, I believe the district court also misinterpreted the facts actually found by the state court. These errors caused the district court to strike a balance of the parties’ private interests that was an abuse of discretion. I also believe the district court committed errors constituting an abuse of discretion in weighing the relevant public interest factors. I conclude, therefore, that the district court’s balancing of the parties’ relevant public and private interests is invalid. See Ford, 319 F.3d at 1308 (<HOLDING>). 1. Private Interest Factors With regard to
holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to enjoin some products but not others holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that the district court overlooked some highly relevant factors and that it ultimately struck a balance that was an abuse of discretion