nction because they would have "informed" the district court's decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of Evidence 401's "having any tendency" definition of relevance in determining whether doc

unction because they would have "informed" the district court's decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (1st Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of Evidence 401's "having any tendency" definition of relevance in determining whether docu

public policy is beside the point. Courts do not exist to "update" statutes in light of the latest technological developments. See Myers I TooJay's Mgmt. Corp., 640 F.3d 1278, 1286 (11th Cir. 2011) (courts "are not licensed to practice statutory remodeling"); Wright. Sec'y for Dep't of Corrs., 278 F.3d 124

n element of both breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims."); LoDuca Assocs., Inc. v. PMS Const. Mgmt. Corp., 936 N.Y.S.2d 192, 192 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 2012) (dismissing causes of action because contract provided that "no damages" could be awarded for the