“ ‘evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an' expert in lay witness clothing.’ ” vos Administradora de Fondos de Inversion Sociedad Anonima v. Titan Int’l, Inc., 533 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir.2008) (“Taylor’s valuation attempt was based on his special experience in the tire industry, not on his personal knowledge of the goods in question; therefore, it falls within the purview of Rule 702”); LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 929-30 (10th Cir.2004) (CEO’s testimony about his business’s lost profits were expert, not lay, opinion because his results were based on sophisticated economic models concerning “moving averages, compounded growth rates, and S-curves”); United States v. 242.93 Acres of Land More or Less, 2012 WL 579503, at *3 n. 2 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (<HOLDING>); 5 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 701:1 (7th ed.)
recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that fre 702 applies to all offers of expert witness testimony requiring that the trial court determine the reliability and relevance of the offered submissions recognizing that the advisory committee notes suggest that a landowners opinion as to the value of the property could be offered under either fre 701 or fre 702 presumably depending on the level of experience training or specialized knowledge that went into formulating the opinion quoting fed r evid 702 recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony holding historical cellsite analysis testimony about how cell phones and towers connect clearly based on scientific technical or specialized knowledge within the scope of rule 702 quoting fed r evid 701c