Plaintiffs also challenge the basis of Dr. Nieves's conclusions, which they deem as ipse dixit, meaning the expert's own “unsupported assertions.” See Collision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Sols. & Networks OY, 691 F.Supp.3d 360, 368 (D.N.H. 2023). “[N]othing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.”

This case's factual background is more fully set forth in the court's order on Nokia's motion for summary judgment. SeeCollision Commc'ns., Inc. v. Nokia Sols.& Networks OY, 687 F.Supp.3d 201 (D.N.H. 2023).

Some of the factors the First Circuit considered were that the expert “consulted publicly available records”, “looked to conversations with manufacturers and research texts”, and “inspected one of the weapons.” Id. at 73; (Docket No. 196 at 11). Travelers also cites to a recent District Court case in this Circuit, Collision Commc'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Sols. & Networks OY, 691 F.Supp.3d 360 (D.N.H. 2023), where the New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Supreme Court noted in that case that “quantum meruit is a restitutionary remedy.” 116 N.H. at 762 & 764; see also Doughty v. State Employees' Ass'n of N.H., SEIU Local 1984, CTW, CLC, 981 F.3d 128, 138 (1st Cir. 2020) (stating that restitution “is an equitable rather than a legal remedy”); Collision Comm'ns, Inc. v. Nokia Solutions & Networks OY, 2023 DNH 100, __ F.Supp.3d. __, 2023 WL 5237896, at *13 (D.N.H. Aug. 15, 2023) (“Quantum meruit provides an equitable remedy for such plaintiffs who are justified in some recovery notwithstanding their inability to recover in contract.”).