under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. Again, this argument rests on the flawed assumption that the District Court relied solely on Rule 703. However, even assuming the District Court mistakenly believed that its Rule 702 reliability analysis actually fell under Rule 703, Plaintiffs’ notice argument would still be meritless. A district court must give the parties “an adequate opportunity to be heard on evidentiary issues.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. (Paoli I), 916 F.2d 829, 854 (3d Cir.1990). Here, there was extensive briefing regarding DeRamus’s damages opinion, much of which focused on Eaton’s argument that DeRamus’s reliance on the SBP was improper. The District Court held not one, but two in limine hearings, in which DeRamus testified for several hours. ' Compare id. at 854-55 (<HOLDING>). As such, Plaintiffs were well aware of, and
holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate evidentiary hearing into the allegations of extraneous influences on the jury pursuant to the holding in remmer  and remanding for a hearing at which the defendant should be accorded the opportunity to question the jurors individually and under qath holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court holding that the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to be heard on an initial 3850 motion in a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues