Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): factors); Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth § 11.493 (2007) (discussing similar factors in assessing the value of survey evidence). The Coulter-Renken Study is based on a sample of 3,116 internet survey respondents. However, the study itself does not provide any indication of how this sample was selected. (Rao Deck ¶ 17.) There is no indication of whether the universe from which these respondents were chosen was a properly defined universe, or whether the 3,116 respondents constituted a representative sample of that universe. Without any information as to the composition and selection methodology of the survey sample, the Coulter-Renken Study is simply not probative of irreparable injury. See Vista Food Exch., Inc., 2005 WL 2371958, at *6, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42541, at *18-19 (<HOLDING>). For all of these reasons, the Court finds 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that survey with improperly idefined sample was not probative (B) holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony (C) holding that survey evidence offered to show actual confusion was properly excludable under rule 403 when it was so flawed that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion (D) holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative (E) holding that drug use is not probative of character for truthfulness
Output (English): holding that survey evidence offered to show actual confusion was properly excludable under rule 403 when it was so flawed that its probative value was outweighed by the risk of prejudice or confusion