(The following discussion was had at sidebar out of the hearing of the jury🙂
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Seham, on this issue of Mr. Skiles' celebrity status I want to give you the chance to explain why that is relevant to this case.
MR. SEHAM: Okay. It's not about his celebrity status. He's an individual who directly benefitted from USAPA's array of service. Their contention is that this union is a one trick pony, that it was only ever about one issue. If that is no longer a contention of the plaintiffs, then we'd have no interest in pursuing this kind of testimony. But, in fact, USAPA is about providing a better service, and that provision of the better service is in the interests of the entire bargaining unit, which is directly relevant to the concept of a DFR, that this union was needed to provide service to this bargaining unit that it could not, was not, would never get from ALPA.
THE COURT: All right. I've given you the chance to make your record. You've given me no reason why the reference to the events of the crash in the Hudson River is relevant to this case, and I will make my record that it is irrelevant, it is highly distracting, it is an indirect attempt to appeal to emotion, and I exclude it for those reasons under 403 in a very clear way.
MR. SEHAM: I -- I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to make the record.