opinions under well-established securities case law. Securities cases routinely provide that in proving loss causation, the plaintiff must show that it suffered a loss as a result of the defendant’s alleged unlawful behavior. In re Williams Secs. Litig., 558 F.3d at 1136 (citing Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC, 552 U.S. 148, 128 S.Ct. 761, 169 L.Ed.2d 627). Because loss causation is “the causal link between the alleged misconduct and the economic harm ultimately suffered by the plaintiff,” Id. at 1137 (citations omitted), the expert must then conduct some form of statistical analysis that isolates the defendant’s conduct and apportions it to the overall loss. Id.; see, e.g., Fener v. Operating Engineers Constr. Indus. & Miscellaneous Pension Fund, 579 F.3d 401, 409 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) Inherent in this is the requirement that the
holding expert testimony provided no evidence as to causation since testimony was not based upon reasonable medical probability holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions holding that the testimony of an expert  along with some kind of analytical research or event studyis required to show loss causation recognizing inherent methodological limitations in all socialscience research particularly sexualharassment research nevertheless holding such expert testimony admissible holding expert testimony properly excluded under daubert where testimony was prepared solely for litigation lacked any supporting research and there was no showing of support for witness conclusions in peerreview articles or any outside research