reliable methodology). Petitioner argues that Domingos’ failure to abide by essential steps in the scientific method means that his conclusions were not supported by “appropriate validation,” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786, or “accompanied by a sufficient factual foundation;” Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 22 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Gumbs v. Int’l Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88, 98 (3d Cir. 1983)). With the building demolished shortly after the fire, there was no way for investigators to test other hypotheses about how the fire started. While the government pointed to the sizable number of pictures taken — over a hundred — proper documentation is about quality, not just quantity. See Ind. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F.Supp.2d 844, 850-51 (N.D.Ohio 2004) (<HOLDING>). Documentation is necessary to test a
holding that eauseandorigin experts failure to properly collect evidence in violation of the section of nfpa 921 entitled documenting the collection of physical evidence made his investigation unreliable holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable holding that causeandorigin ex perts failure to properly collect evidence in violation of nfpa 921 section 951 documenting the collection of physical evidence made his investigation unreliable holding district courts exclusion of expert arson evidence proper where experts failed to compare hypothesis to evidence from scene in violation of nfpa 921