skill, etc.) is to be applied liberally, general business experience unrelated to antitrust economics does not render a witness qualified to offer an opinion on complicated antitrust issues such as defining relevant markets. (B) Reliability of the Opinion The second prerequisite to admissibility is the reliability test embodied in Rule 702 and recently developed through Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). In applying this rule, the Court acts as a gatekeeper to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony ... is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786; see Kumho, 526 U.S. at 141, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (<HOLDING>). Even if a witness is qualified to offer an
holding historical cellsite analysis testimony about how cell phones and towers connect clearly based on scientific technical or specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702 quoting fed r evid 701c holding that daubert sought only to clarify the standard for evaluating scientific knowledge under rule 702 recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge  holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge