Footnotes, 55.

Indeed, in its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, the Court rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed inference “that Phillips ‘considered’ Davis’s ‘challenge process to be invalid and unreliable.’” Doc. No. [333], 11; see also id. at 11–12 (explaining that the redrafted inference allowed was “better supported by the context of the testimony and avoids any improper expert conclusions on the ‘reliability’ or ‘invalidity’ of an empirical process. Indeed, Plaintiffs have been incredibly prophylactic in this case about limiting lay witnesses from testifying about the reliability of the data methods used to craft voter challenge lists” and that “Phillips was not tendered as an expert in this case and making an adverse inference about his impression of the ‘reliability’ of a process would be partand-parcel of the improper expert testimony that the Court has disallowed from Davis, Somerville, and Phillips himself.”).