Whether the courts below erroneously abused their discretion in dismissing Rizzo's experts, whether the courts below erroneously held a different standard of review for Daubert and FRE 702, whether the courts below erroneously denied the amended complaint

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : US Supreme Court held historical case law such as ; Joiner, Matrixx, Daubert, Kumho Tire...etc, based upon scientific / technical evidence within a Daubert Court, protecting the vested interest of Rizzo to assure that Courts are not “heavy handed” or “abuse of discretion” by the gatekeeper violating the constitutional right to trial ; by a jury of peers. © 1. Whether the courts below erroneously abused ' their discretion dismissing Rizzo’s Experts (Dr. Wang, Dr. Miloslavsky, Dr. Hodgman) in . . ; conflict with the decisions of multiple circuits (MDL) even the Second Circuit’s past rulings, where experts and scientific knowledge facts of the case usurp the jury’s right to decide the . facts conflicting with Daubert upon scientific ; controversy overstepping the function of the : gatekeeper. Where epidemiology and peer review was substantial and opinions derived ' from Rizzo’s clinical picture, while claiming the case is of ipse dixit though the science challenges ; the rulings from the courts below supporting ‘ Daubert. The rulings are contradictive to the science and unconstitutionally interferes with _ : Rizzo’s right to have his claims heard by ajury of . peers as required by the Seventh Amendment.? 2. Whether the courts below erroneously held a ; different standard of review for Daubert and 1. Breyer, “Introduction,” 4, and Metzger, “The Demise of Daubert in State Courts.” uw .FRE 702 in combination with unsubstantiated Expert Reports where FRCP 26(A)(2b) requires that when referencing data, the data must : be presented for confirmation of theories, methodologies, or science and reviewed by the . justice. .Record indicates NO journals where . entered by GF in support of GF’s. Motion for : . . ’ Summary Judgment, FRCP 56 in conflict with the Record as being inadequate for review and erroneously blocked evidence, initiating FRAP : 10(e)(2) (which was denied) where scientific research has proven General and Specific oe Caution, supporting that a de novo? review by ; the Second Circuit is erroneous and against the science as well as Justice Stevens dissent, “The District Court, however, examined the studies one by one...”General Elec. Co., v. Joiner, 522 USS. at 152. . 38. Whether Courts below erroneously denied the Amended Complaint that was filed timely, ; FRCP 15(a) on December 20, 2016 due-to a shift in scheduling and was “directed” by Magistrate Baxter to file after Discovery concluded. The courts below ruled against the Amended ° Complaint per their directive to file. Rizzo filed on November 21, 2016, 29 days after close of Discovery (USCA ECF 89, p18). Amending the : Complaint was to further detail CERCLA (42 2. Reviewing Motions for Summary Judgment de novo consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party [Rizzo], see United States v. Deibold Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 . (1962). : U.S.C. § 9601-9675), within this Daubert case, | from site exposures while GF alluded / hinted to ; | / this [thing] at Second Circuit Oral Argument, uncontested by GF Experts, as the Briefs and ; Record support and the courts were erroneous in denying Rizzo’s right to amend. The semiconductor industry has proportional cancer . ; mortality rates (PCMR) ranging from 119% to 367% higher than the general population and is the third largest industry in the private sector, (Clapp et al., 15sa: 18sa).*4 The case presented is politically motivated in NYS where scientific controversy similar to asbestos _ and roundup, though based on silica, solvent, heavy : metals, and ion radiation exposures within the industry. The semiconductor industry is a new avenue of scientific ‘ knowledge that required the US Supreme Court to value the litigation presented. Semiconductor facilities become ; toxic dumps where communities are impacted and workers are exposed internally and externally (Toxic Substances Control Act vs CERCLA). The questions presented are ripe for the Court’s review and this case is anideal