Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: to understand or determine a fact at issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786. And, with that statement, the so-called Daubert hearing was born. Daubert hearings were created for Courts to determine the soundness of an expert’s opinions. A DaubeH hearing was meant to be a manageable evidentiary-hearing where the Trial Judge could outline and evaluate the qualifications of an expert prior to trial. Louis A. Jacobs, Giving Lie to Antiquated Notions About Scientific Evidence, 22 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 507, 537-38 (1999). These hearings were not required in every case and for every expert. Id. at 540. Some Courts, however, erroneously held that Daubert hearings were mandatory for all experts. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 9th Cir., 43 F.3d 1311, 1319 n. 10 (1995) (<HOLDING>); Caubarreaux v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours, 
 Holding statements: (A) 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   (B) holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial (C) holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury (D) holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue (E) holding that the district court need not conduct a separate evidentiary hearing to adjudicate a socalled daubert motion
A:
(A)