not deem the proposed expert to be the best qualified or because the proposed expert does not have the specialization that the court considers most appropriate.” Holbrook v. Dykes Bros. S.S. Co., 80 F.3d 777, 782 (3d Cir.1996). “Rejection of an expert’s testimony is the exception rather than the rule.” Geico Cas. Co. v. Beauford, No. 05-697, 2007 WL 2412974, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 21, 2007). While the Court’s role is admittedly limited, it cannot “toss the [sic] ‘the decision to receive expert testimony ... off to the jury under a let it all in philosophy.’ ” Boyar v. Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd., 954 F.Supp. 4, 7 (D.D.C.1996) (quoting Joy v. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., 999 F.2d 549, 569 (D.C.Cir.1993)); see also Tyger Constr. Co. v. Pensacola Constr. Co., 29 F.3d 137, 143 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Libby, 461 F.Supp.2d 3, 18
holding that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court recognizing that court may not abdicate its responsibility to ensure that only properly admitted evidence is considered by the jury