Strategic rules governing the handling of expert-witness testimony must be revisited in light of the Daubert evolution—referred to as Daubertization—over the past fifteen years. The risk of losing a post-Daubert admissibility challenge is a daunting threat for trial lawyers and other attorneys practicing in the pretrial trenches where the battle often takes place. Many lawyers who do not consider themselves “trial lawyers” must retool their thinking when dealing with pretrial discovery involving any proposed expert witness where the Federal Rule of Evidence, Rule 104 admissibility proceeding is a virtual trial subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard on appellate review. This becomes increasingly important as the number and scope of admissibility challenges escalate, as well as when trial courts take judicial notice of prior expert admissibility rulings. As the Supreme Court has admonished, “[i]t is implausible to suggest, post-Daubert, that parties will initially present less than their best expert evidence in the expectation of a second chance should their first try fail.”