v. Rouco, 765 F.2d 983, 995 (11th Cir.1985)). Expert testimony “is properly excluded when it is not needed to clarify facts and issues of common understanding which jurors are able to comprehend for themselves.” Hibiscus Assocs. Ltd. v. Bd. of Trustees of Policemen & Firemen Retirement Sys., 50 F.3d 908, 917 (11th Cir.1995) (citations omitted). ANALYSIS Defendant Cirrus’s Expert David Klepacki Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Klepacki is qualified as an expert regarding the matters he intends to address, the process he used in forming his expert opinion must be sufficiently reliable under Daubert and its progeny. See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (<HOLDING>). The Court must also find that the testimony
holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable holding that rulings on admissibility under daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered experts methodology holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge 