facts which sufficiently satisfy Rule 702’s reliability requirements.” (quoting Mitchell v. 165 F.3d at 781)). Thus, based on Dr. Thomas’s experience as an education administrator and the nature of his testimony, the court finds Dr. Thomas’s testimony to be reliable under Rule 702. The court also finds that, at this point in time, Dr. Thomas’s testimony is relevant: it “relate[s] to a disputed issue in the case.” Id. Despite the District’s arguments that Dr. Thomas’s testimony is not relevant because it circumvents the jury’s role, Rule 704 allows for expert opinion on the “ultimate issue” at hand. Under Rule 704(a), “An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 704(a); see also United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1171 (10th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Provided that Dr. Thomas bases his
holding that even if an experts testimony arguably embraced the ultimate issue such testimony is permissible as long as the experts testimony assists rather than supplants the jurys judgment holding that expert testimony should be excluded when jury is equally competent to form an opinion about ultimate fact issue or experts testimony is within jurys common knowledge holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally recognized and accepted standard of care holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care