As set forth in her declaration, the declarant did not work as an ETL-AP and was not employed at a Target store in California. Lacks foundation, conclusory, speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The declarant offers no basis for knowing that the store manager or human resources manager were required to approve of any termination recommendations.

Rak Decl., ¶ 13. Lacks foundation, conclusory, speculation (Fed. R. Evid. 702, 901). The declarant provides no detail as to what number of ETL-APs he knows.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court exclude the testimony of Weisenburger, Shustov, and Ross and grant summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on all claims. Case4:09-cv-04124-CW Document319 Filed01/09/14 Page37 of 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION UNDER FRE 702 AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS; MEMO. 31 Case No: 4:09-cv-04124-CW DATED: January 9, 2014 /s/ Prentiss W. Hallenbeck, Jr.

The burden is on Defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Professor Fischel’s testimony is admissible. See 2000 Adv. Comm. Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 702 (explaining that pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 104(a), “the proponent has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of Case 1:05-cr-00545-MSK Document 334 Filed 04/03/07 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 63 60 the evidence.”).

46 (7/21/05 Conflict Decision on Protein Claims). FRE 702 Mr. Mitchell’s conclusory assertions on which Biogen relies to make this statement lack any factual support. In addition, such conclusory assertions in an affidavit are insufficient to overcome summary judgment.

Assistant Attorney General   Case 4:14-cv-01698 Document 399 Filed in TXSD on 04/29/16 Page 13 of 14 Defendants’ Motion Asserting Daubert and FRE 702 Challenges to Plaintiffs’ Class-Action-Certification Expert Testimony Under the Guidelines Established in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, et al., 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016)

Judges thus must decide if an expert’s proposed testimony rests on a reliable foundation or instead simply reflects subjective belief or unsupported speculation. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702. “[S]peculative testimony is inherently unreliable.”

t in understanding the evidence and/or in determining a fact in issue); Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 580 F.Supp.2d 1071, 1107 (D.Colo.,2006) (“critiques of an expert’s evidence gathering techniques ... generally go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility,” citing Little Hocking, 90 F.Supp.3d at 764 (S.D. Ohio 2015)). Defendant does not challenge Dr. Hopke’s long experience in air pollution control and air pollution chemistry that certainly qualify him to provide these opinions which are germane to the issue of Defendant’s negligence. It is of no matter that discovery documents concerning Defendant’s knowledge were provided to him by Plaintiffs’ counsel. What other way could the expert receive Defendant’s documents obtained in discovery? c. Dr. Siegel’s State of Knowledge Opinions are Admissible. Similarly, Dr. Siegel’s opinion that Defendant knew or should have known that its air emissions of PFOA would result in groundwater contamination is admissible under Rule 702. Dr. Case 5:16-cv-00125-gwc Document 246 Filed 02/25/19 Page 90 of 99 91 Siegel has the appropriate experience to provide this opinion, and his review of available documents and scientific literature is the manner in which an expert formulates an opinion about the state of knowledge in a given field.

See Evans Report ¶ 68-69. Thus, based on the infirmities with his “methodology” and its unreliability, Evans’s above-referenced opinions and proposed testimony should be excluded as “speculative or conjectural” under Fed. R. Evid. 702.

pp. 86:23-87:6). Even Dr. Klatsky’s opinion concerning the life expectancy for Mr. Harrison, based on the life expectancy of a months-old baby in 2011, is unreliable and should be precluded under F.R.E. 702. Dr. Klatsky assumed that Mr. Harrison must have started drinking excessively in 1993, because Mr. Harrison stood outside his ex-wife’s (Plaintiffs’ mother’s) home with gifts and cried and yelled trying to reconcile with her.