manager-trainees. 25 . When Foradori's counsel asked Feigenb-aum “if we don’t understand all of their training [i.e. Captain D's training policies as evidenced in Captain D's manuals] as was suggested [by defense counsel], whose fault is that[?],” the district court sustained Captain D’s objection, stating that such opinion was outside of Feigenbaum’s area of expertise. Also, the district court sustained objections to plaintiff counsel's mischaracterization of King's testimony and to leading questions. 26 . In a motion in limine, Captain D's raised a Daubert objection to Feigenbaum's qualifications; however, Captain D’s waived it by failing to timely object to his qualification and testimony at trial. See C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690, 701 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Waggener, 837 F.2d 220, 222 (5th
holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial