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
holding that there are no grounds under daubert or fedrevid 702 to doubt the reliability of schilenss testimony 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 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   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 holding that the district court need not conduct a separate evidentiary hearing to adjudicate a socalled daubert motion