When will Long be denied leave to amend or amend his medical malpractice complaint?

showing all elements of a legal malpractice case, including damages," Vincent v. DeVries, 193 Vt. at 590, 72 A.3d at 898, Parry was under no obligation to adduce affirmative evidence that a higher settlement could not have been obtained, as Long now argues.

2. Destruction of Documents

We decline to address Long's contentions relating to the destruction of documents, because those arguments were not raised below and, thus, are forfeited on appeal. See Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231, 246 (2d Cir. 2016) ("[A]s a general matter, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed, Long voluntarily assented to the order excluding all confidential documents and information from this litigation and failed to challenge the district court's July 2015 order requiring the destruction or return of such documents. Accordingly, we decline to remand the case on that basis.

3. Leave To Amend

We identify no error in the district court's denial of leave to file a second amended complaint. See United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16, 28 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Leave to amend should be freely given . . . when justice so requires, but should generally be denied in instances of futility, undue delay . . . or . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or undue prejudice to the non-moving party." (alterations, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Amendment to a

Page 6