Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding [the witness] from testifying as an expert witness at trial.”). We come to the same conclusion with respect to the court’s ruling limiting the scope of Mr. Quinn’s testimony to the prosecution history and the topic of plumes, because they were the only matters within his relevant expertise. Although a mechanical engineer by training, his technical experience was limited to satellite design while employed as an engineer at General Electric. Accordingly, we cannot say the district court did not act within its discretion in finding Mr. Quinn unqualified to testify about laboratory equipment used in the development of drug delivery devices. See, e.g., Malave-Felix v. Volvo Car Corp., 946 F.2d 967, 973 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In sum, we see no abuse of discretion in the
holding that court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the deposition of administrative decisionmakers because the party disavowed any intent to question the commissioners mental processes holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony of mechanical engineer in products liability case involving automobile because expert did not have specific experience regarding subject matter of lawsuit holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the expertise of an automobile systems expert did not extend to the mental processes and human factors which may have caused an automobile accident holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify