od's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubers, 509 U.S. at 593-94). But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381

5 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubers, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the m

k, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Daubers, 509 U.S. at 591 (internal quotation marks omitted). The party that proffers the testimony bears the burden of showing that it is admissible by a p