With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". bears the burden of establishing the relevance, reliability, and admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., D. Ark., 965 F.Supp. 1490, 1497 (1996), aff'd, 8th Cir., 133 F.3d 1132 (1998); Schmaltz v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., D. Ill., 878 F.Supp. 1119, 1120 (1995); see also Harvey Brown, Procedural Issues Under Daubert, 36 Houst. L.Rev. 1133, 1136 (1999) (citing cases). Another source of confusion is the appropriate procedure. In Daubert, the Court opined that “[fjaced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the Trial Judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to: (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of f 714 So.2d 67, 71 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The requirement of mandatory Daubert hearings

A: holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403
B: holding that under daubert and state law principles the trial court is mandated to order a pretrial or status conference to discuss and simplify any daubert issues or if those issues are still not resolved to hold a pretrial daubert hearing
C: holding after remand that where the opposing party thus raises a material dispute as to the admissibility of expert scientific evidence the district court must hold an in limine hearing a socalled daubert hearing to consider the conflicting evidence  
D: holding that there are no grounds under daubert or fedrevid 702 to doubt the reliability of schilenss testimony
B.