a matter of fact that the wind generated by the storm created pressure higher than 40 PSF. Defendant also contends that Mr. Abruzzo’s testimony should be dismissed out of hand because he testified as to the hangar specification requirements, but studied only the schematics related to the fuel dock. Although Mr. Abruzzo testified that the hangar pressure panel specifications were also incorrect, defendant points out that the hangar did not have pressure relief panels. Defendant therefore urges rejection of Mr. Abruzzo’s opinion testimony based on Supreme Court precedent in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The Daubert requirements are derived primarily from Fed.R.Evid. 702. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-95, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (<HOLDING>). The Federal Circuit recently held that a
holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial holding that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that trial courts are gatekeepers in determining fitness of scientific expert testimony for admissibility at trial recognizing that it is the proponents burden to demonstrate the admissibility of expert scientific testimony