(in an antitrust class action brought on behalf of dairy farmers against milk cooperatives and processors, defendants asked the court to exclude various opinions of plaintiffs' expert witness, arguing that the testimony was inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993); the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion, ruling first that the expert could offer opinions regarding the relevant geographic market, even if those opinions conflicted in part with plaintiffs’ alleged geographic market; the court excluded the expert’s testimony regarding his significant non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP) tests, finding that they would offer the jury confusing and contradictory opinions that appear "scientific" but yield no reliable conclusions; the court found that the expert could “opine” regarding the identity of co-conspirators and their economic incentives to participate, but he could not offer opinions about "passive conspirators" in an apparent attempt to expand the participants in the alleged conspiracy without actually testifying regarding an actual agreement to conspire; finally, the court excluded the expert’s use of the “Boston base blend price” when testifying as to damages).