context: Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Sommer is qualified to testify as an expert on piloting and accident reconstruction, including engine failure analysis, the Court must still find that the process he used in forming his expert opinion is suffi ciently reliable under Daubert and its progeny.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 298 F.3d 1257, 1257
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that "[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert's methodology"
citation_a.sentence: See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (holding that “[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 326 F.3d 1342, 1342
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony"
citation_b.sentence: See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (holding that “[rjulings on admissibility under Daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered expert’s methodology”).