prepared the discussion in WilsonMiller’s February 24, 2012 report regarding access from Palmer Ranch to McIntosh Road by means of an easement relocation on Prestan-cia. Although Plaintiffs identified Mr. Paul-mann as an expert land use planner, Mr. Paulmann was not qualified as an expert and did not testify on any aspect of the Wilson-Miller reports. Mr. Paulmann testified only as a lay witness regarding a wholly different topic — the Palmer Ranch Development of Regional Impact. Tr. 903. Accordingly, because the WilsonMiller authors — Plaintiffs’ experts — did not testify regarding the reasonable probability of access from McIntosh Road to Palmer Ranch, the Court accords no weight to the statements in the reports on this issue. See Brace v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 337, 352 (2006) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 250 Fed.Appx. 359 (Fed.Cir.2007).
holding that even inadmissible hearsay is admissible if of the type generally relied upon by experts in the field recognizing that while a testifying expert may rely upon facts or data made known to the expert before the hearing and even may rely upon opinions if reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field the ipse dixit of that reliance does not make those facts data or opinions true particularly where  they are derived largely from hearsay holding that an expert may base his or her opinions and inferences on facts andor data perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing internal quotation marks omitted holding district court is not required to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert recognizing district courts authority to exclude opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert should it conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered