In United States v. Fama the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that a radio engineering and cell phone tower expert witness used a methodology sufficiently relevant and reliable under Daubert. The Court reasoned:
The Government points to several cases in which courts have found expert testimony similar to the one at issue here to be reliable under Daubert. Notably, Fama fails to cite any case law in which a court has held this type of cell site analysis to be unreliable. At this point, Fama has not challenged Orellana’s qualifications as an expert, but rather attacks the reliability of his methodology. “Numerous federal courts” have found similar testimony reliable and admissible. United States v. Henderson, No. 10–cr–117, 2011 WL 6016477, at *5 (N.D.Okla. Dec.2, 2011) (“[A]lthough Defendant suggests this type of testimony is not reliable, it has been accepted by numerous federal courts ….”) (citing United States v. Schaffer, 439 F. App’x 344, 347 (5th Cir.2011) (“Testimony established that the field [of historical cell cite analysis] is neither untested nor unestablished.”)); see United States v. Allums, No. 08–cr–30, 2009 WL 806748, at *2 (D.Utah Mar.24, 2009) (“The Court finds that the methodology [of using cell cite analysis] utilized by [the expert] is reliable.”). This Court finds that the Government has shown by a “preponderance of the evidence that the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 are satisfied.” United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir.2007). Therefore, Orellana will be allowed to give his expert testimony.
Fama lists a variety of factors that purportedly can impact the communication of a cellular phone and a particular cellular tower, stating that there is “no evidence presented that the government has even considered these various factors….” Def.’s Mot., at 2–3. The Government correctly points out that these concerns go the weight of Orellana’s testimony, not the reliability. See Allums, 2009 WL 806748, at *2 (holding that objections similar to Fama’s “might cast doubt on [the expert’s] conclusions” and would be “appropriately raised on cross-examination,” but they would not “override the Court’s finding that [the expert’s] methodology is reliable under Daubert.”). The Court finds the proposed testimony to be reliable under Daubert and will not preclude Orellana’s expert testimony. Fama’s objections concern the weight of Orellana’s testimony, and it is the province of the jury to decide what weight, if any, to give such testimony.
The Court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (“The trial court must have the same kind of latitude in deciding how to test an expert’s reliability, and to decide whether or when special briefing or other proceedings are needed to investigate reliability, as it enjoys when it decides whether or not that expert’s relevant testimony is reliable.”) (emphasis in original). During trial, if Fama opts to challenge Orellana’s qualifications as an expert, the Court will allow him to do so outside of the presence of the jury.