With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". electrocuted on February 18, 1999 while installing an industrial fuse in high-voltage electrical switching gear designed and manufactured by the defendant, ABB Power T & D Company, Inc. At the time of the accident, Zuzula worked for a power plant, Midland Cogeneration Venture (“MCV”), which owned and maintained the electrical switching gear. The Court has reviewed the reports submitted by the respective witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) together with their depositions, and has heard the arguments of the parties through their respective counsel in open court on October 23, 2002. The Court finds that the parties have submitted sufficient information to permit the Court to adjudicate the motions. See Greenwell v. Boativright, 184 F.3d 492, 498 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes that the parties each

A: holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law
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 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
D: holding that the district court need not conduct a separate evidentiary hearing to adjudicate a socalled daubert motion
D.