With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". For each of those factors, plaintiffs rely on the survey evidence presented by their expert William Neal. For the reasons set forth above and below, the Court finds Mr. Neal’s testimony is not persuasive on this critical issue. 2. Plaintiffs’ Survey Evidence is Unpersuasive a. The Legal Standard Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Court must ensure that expert testimony “is not only relevant, but reliable.” See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Daubert and Kumho are codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Daubert standard applies to survey evidence. See, e.g., The Sports Authority, Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 965 F.Supp. 925, 933 (E.D.Mich.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Defendant’s expert, Dr.

A: holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property
B: holding that determination of whether someone is an employee under the adea must be made in accordance with common law agency principles
C: holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies
D: holding that tjhe proponent of a consumer survey has the burden of establishing that it was conducted in accordance with accepted principles of survey research
D.