Cases using phrasing similar to:
""The party seeking summary judgment [must] identify for the district court those portions of the record `which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'""
As the Supreme Court made clear in Daubert, Rule 702 compels the district court to perform a "gatekeeping" function concerning the admissibility of expert testimony to ensure that speculative and unreliable opinions do not reach the jury. ... These additional factors may include whether the expert developed his opinion expressly for the purposes of testifying, unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion, failed to rule out other possible causes or adequately account for obvious alternative explanations, or relied on insufficient facts, anecdotal evidence, or mere temporal proximity.
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court imposed on the trial courts a special gatekeeper role of ensuring that proffered expert testimony is both relevant and reliable before being admitted as evidence. ... cf. State Nat. Ins. Co. v. Access General Agency, Inc., 2007 WL 4563860, *2 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 22, 2007) (Camp, J.) (admitting expert testimony regarding insurance company's response to time-limited demand for settlement even though the issues "are not necessarily complicated or complex matters beyond the understanding of the average juror, [as expert] testimony will assist the jury in understanding such matters as what documents an insurance adjustor might need to adjust a claim and how long an adjuster might take to assess and respond to a claim or demand for payment").
The Daubert Court set out four nonexclusive factors that should be considered by a trial court assessing the reliability of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702:(1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) whether the technique has a high known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory has gained general acceptance within the scientific community. ... Daubert also requires a special inquiry into relevance, calling on the trial court to ensure that expert testimony logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party's case.
In a conclusory fashion, specifically one sentence of its motion, Alfa merely states that "Mr. Gilmore is not qualified to give admissible testimony under FED. R. EVID., Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)." ... Walker reported that she had an expert witness, Dr. Page, who would testify that Cameron's preexisting medical conditions could have impaired Cameron's driving abilities and that Cameron's post-accident deep vein thrombosis was not necessarily a result of the accident, both of which could serve to both mitigate damages and help defend the issue of liability.
Additionally, based on the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court finds that Dr. Perri's supplemental report is an untimely attempt to bolster Dr. Perri's expert opinions shortly before the Daubert hearing. ... The Government also filed Daubert motions to exclude AseraCare experts Dr. Bo Martin, Ph.D.; Dr. Chester Palmer, Ed.D.; and Ms. Leslie Norwalk.
As the Supreme Court made clear in Daubert, Rule 702 compels the district court to perform a "gatekeeping" function concerning the admissibility of expert testimony to ensure that speculative and unreliable opinions do not reach the jury. ... To evaluate the reliability of a scientific expert opinion, a court considers several factors: (1) whether the expert's theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether the known or potential rate of error of the methodology is acceptable; and (4) whether the theory is generally accepted in the proper scientific community.
Defendants challenge Relators' experts on numerous grounds, including that neither expert is qualified under the principles set forth in Daubert, and that the opinions are otherwise inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 702, and 703. ... The opinions offered by the non-retained experts is problematic, however, because they do not comport with Daubert and Rule 702's reliability requirement.
Daubert also requires a special inquiry into relevance, calling on the trial court to ensure that expert testimony "logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party's case." ... The primary focus of a Daubert inquiry is on the principles and methodology underlying expert opinion testimony, not the conclusions they generate.
As the Supreme Court clarified in Daubert, a trial court must act as a "gatekeeper" and test the reliability and relevancy of the proposed expert's opinions before determining whether they can be admitted as expert testimony. ... 509 U.S. at 589-93 The trial judge must undertake a "rigorous three-part inquiry" and decide whether: (1) a proposed expert is qualified to competently testify concerning his opinions; (2) his methodology is sufficiently reliable; and (3) his testimony would assist the jury, through the application of scientific, specialized, or technical expertise, to determine a fact in issue or understand the evidence.
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004) (italics in original) (citing Rule 702 cmt. at 290) "After all, `[e]xperts of all kinds tie observations to conclusions through the use of what Judge Learned Hand called "general truths derived from ... specialized experience'" and `no one denies that an expert might draw a conclusion from a set of observations based on extensive and specialized experience.'" ... Although not specifically outlined in his expert report, Dr. Gelfand's deposition testimony indicates that he considered and eliminated tuberculosis, emphysema, cardiovascular disease, a healed heart attack, atherosclerosis, chronic kidney disease, and nephrosclerosis as causes of death and ultimately determined that four possible mechanisms secondary to tuberculosis were plausible causes of Water's death-hypoxemia, electrolyte disturbances or acidosis, bacterial super-infection (pneumonia), and adrenal insufficiency.