ere is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant, which allegedl

essment rere memeneistseee 13, 28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N-Y. 2009) oo. ceeeeeecesteeteeteeeeeeeees 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (1 1th Cir. 1998) oo. eee ceseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeneessaee 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N

2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N.Y.S.2d

nt in intentional wrongdoing—albeit extraterri- torially—expressly directed at forum”) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482)); Time, Inc. v. Sumpson, No. 02 Civ. 49170MBM), 2003 WL 23018890, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003) (finding Calder turned on “personal in- volvement of the individu