or data upon which the experts based their opinion do not have to be admissible in evidence in order for their opinion or inference to be admitted, if they are the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. See Fed. R.Evid. 703. Rio Mar argues that the experts can rely on Mr. Santiago’s hearsay statement because expert witnesses can rely on witness interviews and witness’ sworn testimony in developing their ultimate opinions. Although undisputed that an expert may base his or her testimony on inadmissible facts or data, Rule 703 “does not allow the data itself.” Bado-Santana v. Ford Motor Co., 364 F.Supp.2d 79, 91-92 (D.P.R.2005) (citing Engebretsen v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 21 F.3d 721, 728-729 (6th Cir.1994)) (<HOLDING>) In other words, the rule simply permits an
holding that a court may rely on otherwise inadmissible evidence including hearsay evidence at the preliminary injunction stage holding that experts may rely on inadmissible material in forming the basis of opinions but inadmissible material may not be admitted for truth of the matter asserted holding that the trial court may consider documents submitted by the defendant on a motion to dismiss solely for a nonhearsay purpose and therefore may not rely on factual assertions in the documents for the truth of the matter asserted holding that experts may rely in part on internet research holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible