Extract to table

The Court emphasized, however, that these factors are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and that the gatekeeping inquiry must be "flexible" and adapted to the particular circumstances of the case

2002) ("Under Daubert, the district court must act as a 'gatekeeper' by making a preliminary determination, pursuant to Rule 104(a), regarding whether the expert's testimony is reliable

2016) (noting that a damages model must be "tied to the facts of the case")

Critically, the burden of establishing the admissibility of expert testimony rests on the proponent of the evidence — here, Vantor — which must demonstrate admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence

This allocation of the burden of proof is significant because it means that Vantor must affirmatively establish that Dr

2 is enforceable under New York law requires application of the well-established two-part test: (1) the amount fixed must have been a reasonable estimate of the probable damages at the time of contracting, and (2) the actual damages must have been difficult to ascertain at the time of contracting