Does the prohibition against evidence of subsequent remedial measures apply to government-mandated remedial measures (such as involuntary product recalls)?

Cf. United States v. Fleck, 413 F.3d 883, 890-891 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that even though the evidence of Fleck's alleged insurance fraud was inadmissible where it failed to "provide any context for and were not inextricably intertwined - indeed they had nothing to do with - the commission of the...Evidence that helps tell a factual story in an intelligible way or that puts the evidence or the issues in the case in a meaningful or intelligible context is "relevant."

Fed. R. Evid. 403 advisory committee's note ("The case law recognizes that certain circumstances call for the exclusion of evidence which is of unquestioned relevance. These circumstances entail risks which range all the way from inducing decision on a purely emotional basis, at one extreme, to nothing more harmful than merely wasting...The trial court may use Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude relevant evidence if the court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or waste of resources.

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, pin? (1988) (defendant was charged with selling stolen goods; defendant denied he knew the goods were stolen; to rebut defendant's claim of lack of knowledge, government....Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary; "sufficient" means only that there must be enough evidence to make the other crime, wrong, or act relevant.