Full opinion text
DECISION AND ORDER ARCARA, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Steven and Roberta Dreyer brought this action in products liability alleging that the defendants’ autohauler is defectively designed because it lacks a fall protection system. Steven Dreyer (“Dreyer”) operated the autohauler and during the unloading process he fell from the upper level and sustained several injuries for which he seeks compensation. Roberta Dreyer seeks damages for loss of consortium. Defendants contend that the auto-hauler is not defectively designed, that it is reasonably safe, that no alternative, safer designs are feasible and that Dreyer’s own negligence was the cause of his fall. This matter is scheduled for jury trial to commence on April 18, 2005. BACKGROUND Pending before the Court are several motions concerning the admissibility of expert testimony at trial, including defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order disqualifying defendants’ expert, Dr. Charles Proctor (“Proctor”), defendants’ motion to file Dr. Proctor’s supplemental expert report, defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ expert, Linda Weseman (“Weseman”), and defendants’ motion to strike Weseman’s supplemental expert reports. Defendants also filed several procedural motions relating to these substantive motions. DISCUSSION A. Objections to Decision and Order Disqualifying Defendants’ Expert The Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order concerns a non-dispositive motion and will not be reversed by this Court unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Nikkal Industries, Ltd. v. Salton, Inc., 689 F.Supp. 187, 189 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (Magistrate’s conclusions on motion to disqualify expert witness subject to the “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review). A finding is “clearly erroneous” when “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). On July 27, 2002 plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Proctor’s expert opinions. On February 9, 2005 Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio issued a Decision and Order in which he concluded that Proctor’s opinions should be excluded because defendants failed to show (1) that Proctor was qualified to opine on whether the autohauler was negligently designed and whether Dreyer’s negligence caused his injuries; (2) that Proctor’s conclusions are relevant to the issues before the jury; and (3) that Proctor had a technical basis for his conclusions and that his conclusions are based on rehable facts and data as required by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). On March 1, 2005 defendants filed a document which asserts objections to and seeks reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s February 9, 2005 Decision and Order. However, a review of the document reveals no request for reconsideration except that made in the title of the document. The document is an appeal to this Court of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling, and it has been treated as such. Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ objections, arguing that the objections are untimely and that defendants fail to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 1. Timeliness of the Objections The Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order was issued on February 9, 2005. Defendants filed their objections on March 1, 2005. Plaintiffs argue that the objections are untimely and should not be considered. Plaintiffs are correct. Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order are to be filed “[w]ith-in 10 days after being served with a copy of the ... order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The 10 days available pursuant to Rule 72 are business days since Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure excludes weekends and legal holidays from the computation of filing periods less than 11 days in length. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules ... [w]hen the period ... prescribed or allowed is less than 11 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72 indicate that the 10-day period is subject to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides: Whenever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper upon the party and the notice or paper [is] served upon the party [by mail], 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period. The additional three days provided for under Rule 6(e) are calendar days, not business days, and are added after the calculation of the 10 days pursuant to Rule 6(a). See Treanor v. MCI Telecom. Corp., 150 F.8d 916, 918-19 (8th Cir.1998); CNPq-Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Technologico v. Inter-Trade, Inc., 50 F.3d 56, 58-59 (D.C.Cir.1995); IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir.1993). In this case, the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order was filed and sent to the parties on February 9, 2005. Under Rule 72 and Rule 6(a), the 10-day period would have expired on February 24, 2005. Adding the three additional days under Rule 6(e), defendants’ objections would have been due on February 27, 2005. However, because that day fell on a Sunday, the objections were due the next business day, Monday, February 28, 2005. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a); Golden Nugget, Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Co., 232 F.Supp.2d 631, 634 (E.D.Va.2002). Defendants’ objections were not filed until March 1, 2005, and thus they are untimely. 2. Decision and Order Not Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law Even if the defendants’ objections had been timely filed, the Court concludes that defendants failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Defendants’ objections are 47 pages in length, and consist of excerpts, without page references, from the Magistrate Judge’s 60 page Decision and Order followed by defendants’ arguments as to why the excerpted portions are erroneous. Defendants’ challenge the Magistrate Judge’s decision with respect to Proctor’s qualifications, methodology and the relevance of his opinions to the issues that will confront the jury in this case. The Magistrate Judge concluded that although Proctor is well-eredentialed, he lacks qualification or experience relevant to autohaulers such that his opinions go beyond the scope of his area of expertise. As both the Magistrate Judge and defendants note, a review of an expert’s qualifications should not be so narrow as to limit the source of experts to only those persons with direct experience in the relevant industry. See Stagl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 117 F.3d 76, 81 (2d Cir.1997). However, an expert may opine on matters “within the reasonable confines of his subject area, and cannot render expert opinion on an entirely different field or discipline.” Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 857 F.Supp. 222, 227-28 (N.D.N.Y.1994). An otherwise well-eredentialed expert’s opinion may be subject to disqualification if he fails to employ investigative techniques or cannot explain the technical basis for his opinion. See Mannix v. Chrysler Corp., No. 97-CV-1944, 2001 WL 477291 (E.D.N.Y. March 4, 2001). A review of Proctor’s report indicates that he has extensive education, experience, and teaching experience in mechanical engineering. He has acted as an expert witness many times in the past, and on two prior occasions, in cases concerning injuries during the loading and unloading of autohaulers. He states that he has loaded, unloaded and operated a fully loaded autohauler and has received training in those tasks from Ryder personnel. The Court concludes that, as defendants argue, Proctor has the objective credentials and experience, albeit not directly related to fall protection systems on autohaulers, to qualify him as an expert to testify as to the existence of a design defect. As the Magistrate Judge noted, however, - Proctor failed to articulate the technical or scientific basis for his conclusions. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed.R.Evid. 702. Proctor, in’ his report and as amplified by his deposition testimony, opined that the autohauler was appropriately designed and not defective because Dreyer could have safely loaded and unloaded the vehicles on the autohauler as currently designed. He also concluded that, since the design of the autohauler was appropriate, it was not necessary to assess the foreseeability of Dreyer’s use of the autohauler, i.e., loading the van front end first and approaching it from the ramps to unload it. Proctor failed, however, to explain the technical basis for his conclusions. Proctor’s conclusions regarding the absence of defect may well have been based on his education, training and experience as an engineer. However, his failure to explain why his training and experience led him to his conclusion is the reason why his opinion cannot be accepted. Without explaining the reasoning behind his conclusion, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Court is left with the mere ipse dixit, or say so, of the expert. His use of statistical evidence to support his conclusion was also not reliable. Defendants argue that Weseman, plaintiffs’ expert, verified that Proctor’s statistical method was acceptable. However, the pages of Weseman’s deposition in another case which defendants cite indicate that in fact, Weseman did not accept Proctor’s method of comparing the number of injuries to the number of “exposures.” Weseman described such an approach as “inappropriate.” Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Proctor’s opinions as to Dreyer’s negligence would not assist the jury because Proctor’s opinions were based in large part on common sense and facts which would be obvious to any reasonable adult. Defendants have not demonstrated that the Magistrate Judge’s decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order are denied. B. Defendants’ Motion to Supplement Proctor’s Expert Report Defendants seek to supplement Proctor’s initial expert report in order - to address some of the Magistrate Judge’s concerns and to address some of the conclusions reached by plaintiffs’ expert in her supplemental reports. Plaintiffs object, arguing that defendants cannot rehabilitate Proctor’s opinions now that they have been excluded by the Magistrate Judge. Defendants’ motion is denied as untimely. Proctor’s supplemental report is dated March 1, 2005, three weeks after the Magistrate Judge issued his Decision and Order disqualifying Proctor as an expert witness in this matter. Plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify Proctor was filed in July, 2002. No attempt was made to supplement Proctor’s report for over 2$ years. Defendants’ have failed to cite any authority allowing a disqualified expert to supplement his report in order to meet the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert. Proctor’s second reason for the supplement, specifically to address the conclusions reached in plaintiffs’ expert’s supplemental reports, is equally unavailing. In his original report, Proctor stated that he had reviewed Weseman’s original and first supplemental report. Therefore, Proctor could have rebutted Weseman’s conclusions in his original report. Weseman’s other two supplemental reports were .issued in November 2003 and in January 2005, but defendants made no application to supplement Proctor’s report at those times. Despite having several opportunities to supplement Proctor’s report, defendants waited until 48 days prior to trial to seek leave to do so. The Court cannot countenance such delay. Defendants’ motion is denied. C. Defendants’ Motion to Disqualify Weseman as Plaintiffs’ Expert On March 14, 2005, defendants, for the first time, challenged the qualifications and opinions of plaintiffs’ expert Weseman by motion to disqualify her as an expert in this matter. Defendants contend that, based on the reasons cited by the Magistrate Judge for the disqualification of Proctor, Weseman’s opinions and testimony should also be excluded. Plaintiffs counter that the Magistrate Judge had compared Weseman’s report and testimony favorably to Proctor and that Wese-man’s education and experience in the au-tohauling industry renders her qualified to opine on the defect in the autohauler and on feasible alternatives. Weseman submitted her original expert report in this matter on November 1, 2000, over four years ago. Despite their awareness of Weseman’s credentials and methodology since that time, and despite their awareness of the basis for plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify Proctor since July 2002, defendants waited until 35 days prior to commencement of the trial to attack Wese-man’s qualifications. If the defendants believed Weseman was not qualified to act as an expert in this matter, it was incumbent upon them to make a timely motion to disqualify her. Defendants’ motion is untimely and it is denied. D. Motion to Strike Weseman’s Supplemental Reports On March 1, 2005, defendants filed a motion seeking to strike supplemental reports which were submitted by Weseman over the past several years. Weseman’s original report was dated November 1, 2000. Her first supplemental report was dated April 27, 2001, her second supplemental report was dated November 4, 2003 and her third supplemental report was dated January 18, 2005. Defendants contend that the supplemental reports were filed after the deadline for completion of discovery and without leave of Court. Plaintiffs argue that the reports should not be stricken because by submitting supplemental reports, plaintiffs were merely fulfilling their obligation to supplement their disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ motion is denied. Defendants were provided with Weseman’s supplemental reports at the time she drafted them. Defendants could have and should have raised objection to the supplemental reports at the time they were served. The motion is untimely and is denied. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s February 9, 2005 Decision and Order are denied; defendants motion for leave to supplement Proctor’s expert' report is denied; defendants’ motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ expert is denied; and defendants’ motion to strike the supplemental reports of plaintiffs’ expert is denied. Also, defendants’ motion to file objections in excess of the page limits is granted and defendants’ motion for a one day extension of time to file objections is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. JURISDICTION This matter was referred to the undersigned by Hon. Richard J. Arcara for all pretrial matters on March 31, 1998 (Doc. No. 13). It is presently before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Defendants’ Expert (Doc. No. 92). BACKGROUND This products liability action alleging defective design of a multi-vehicle autohauler was commenced February 2, 1998. Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ designated expert witness Charles L. Proctor, II, Ph.D. (“Proctor”), was filed on July 26, 2002 (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”), with the supporting affidavit of David P. Marcus, Esq., dated July 26, 2002 (Doc. No. 94) (“Marcus Affidavit”) along with Exhibits A — V (“Plaintiffs’ Exhibit(s) _”), a video tape (“Plaintiffs’ Exhibit S”), and a Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 93) (“Plaintiffs’ Memorandum”). Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ Motion by filing, on October 2, 2002, the Declaration of Samuel J. Burrano, Jr., Esq., dated October 2, 2002 (“Burrano Declaration”) (Doc. No. 101) together with Exhibits A— D (“Defendants’ Exhibit(s) _”), and a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. No. 102) (“Defendants’ Memorandum”). On October 23, 2002, Plaintiffs filed the Affidavit of David P. Marcus, Esq. in further support of Plaintiffs’ motion, attaching Plaintiffs’ Exhibits W — X, together with Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 106) (“Marcus Reply Affidavit”) (“Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum”). On June 4, 2003, Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the court submitting additional authority in further support of Plaintiffs’ Motion. Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED. FACTS On February 27, 1997, Plaintiff, Steven Dreyer (“Dreyer”), slipped and fell from the left side of the upper-level of a Model 3200 tractor-trailer assembled by Defendant Delavan Industries and used to transport cars, light trucks, and minivans (“the autohauler” or “the Model 3200”). The autohauler is comprised of a tractor unit or cab where the driver sits and a trailer on which loaded vehicles are transported. Defendants’ Exhibit A; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B (Report of Charles L. Proctor, II, Ph.D., December 4, 2000) (“Proctor(s) Report”) at 11, ¶ 1; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit D (Report of Linda L. Weseman, P.E., November 1, 2002 (“Weseman(s) Report”)) at 1-2. The autohauler, a “modified” Model 3200, was capable of carrying up to twelve cars. Proctor Report at 11, ¶ 5. Using a system of hydraulic devices and ramps, the Model 3200 enables the driver of the autohauler (“driver”) to load two vehicles on an upper level, located above the tractor’s cab, (“the headramp”), one vehicle below the head-ramp on the flat part of the trailer portion of the autohauler, and additional vehicles on the upper and lower levels of the trailer portion of the autohauler. Proctor Report at 1, ¶ 1; Weseman Report at 1, ¶ 3; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 3; Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Al — A2. The accident giving rise to this action occurred while Dreyer was unloading six Chevrolet Astro minivans (“Astro minivan(s)” or “minivan(s)”) at Defendant Ryder Automotive Carrier Services, Inc.’s Roanoke, Indiana facility near Ft. Wayne, Indiana, having previously loaded the minivans at Elkhart, Indiana, approximately an hour’s drive away. Defendants’ Exhibit B (ACD Supervisor’s First Report of Injury); Proctor Report at 11, ¶ 6. After unloading the minivans from the first level of the autohauler, Dreyer positioned the No. 2 position ramp, on which Dreyer had loaded an Astro minivan front-end-first, to enable him to unload the minivan. Proctor’s Report at 12, ¶ 1; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit E (Deposition of Steven D. Dreyer, March 15, 1999) (“Dreyer Deposition”) at 73, 76; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-3, A~4, A-5. Drivers can unload minivans from the Model 3200’s headramp by walking up a ramp from the lower.level of the autohauler’s trailer to gain access to the driver’s seat through the minivan’s rear door, or by stepping along the side of the minivan on the ramp to gain access through the driver’s side door. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit K (Deposition of Timothy Vincent on September 28, 2000) (“Vincent Deposition”) at 28 — 30, 31, 34; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-3. An alternate, and, according to Defendants, the proper, means of reaching a minivan on the headramp is to climb to the headramp area using “foot brackets” located behind the cab. Defendants’ Memorandum at 2-3; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 4, n. 6; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-8. However, according to Leo Ferguson, an experienced Model 3200 driver, such foot brackets, or “foot pegs,” are limited to accessing a vehicle in the Model 3200’s No. 1 position, i.e., a vehicle loaded on the headramp over the cab in front of a vehicle loaded in the No. 2 position, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-8, as such “foot pegs” can only be safely used by the driver “to get the front one [the vehicle in the No. 1 position] off.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit L (Deposition of Leo B. Ferguson, September 29, 2000) (“Ferguson Deposition”) at 12 (bracketed material added). Ferguson testified that the foot brackets or pegs would be of “no help” in climbing up to the No. 2 position as “there are no foot pegs on the back of the trailer and you can’t get in between Number 1 to get to Number 2, because it’s just not enough room.” [sic ]. Id.; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-9. Vehicles are loaded on the No. 1 and No. 2 positions by extending the No. 2 position ramps using hydraulic devices, which lengthen the ramps to. allow for loading of a vehicle by driving the vehicle up the ramp to the No. 1 or No. 2 position. Proctor Report at 12, ¶ 1. To accommodate the vehicle, the ramps forming the No. 2 position are horizontally extended by hydraulic pistons, and, as a result, the metal rod of the piston is exposed beyond the metal cover of the hydraulic unit. Vincent Deposition at 31-35; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit F (Deposition of Peter J. Terzian, Jr., August 26, 1999 (“Terzian Deposition”)) at 135; Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A-2, A-4. According to Ter-zian, when extended the metal shaft of the piston rod is likely to be oily. Terzian Deposition at 135. The vehicle to be loaded on the headramp is then driven, front-end or back-end-first, up the lowered rear ramps, onto the extended No. 2 position ramp and secured. Vincent Deposition at 29; Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A-3 — A-7. Additional vehicles can then be loaded using the same procedure in the open remaining positions on the upper and lower ramps of the trailer unit. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A-l, A-2. The Model 3200 is not equipped with an “after the market” “cat walk,” or walking surface, covering the entire length of the hydraulic cylinder and the extended piston. Vincent Deposition at 30-31. Vehicles loaded by backing them into the No. 2 position can also be accessed through their driver’s side doors by climbing steps located on the right side of the autohauler cab. Proctor Report at 13, ¶ 11; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit S. In this case, Dreyer, 6' 5" tall and weighing over 300 pounds, attempted to unload the No. 2 position Astro minivan, which Dreyer had loaded onto the auto-hauler front-end-first, by walking up the ramps from the rear of the autohauler intending to enter the minivan through its driver’s side door. Dreyer Deposition at 76; Proctor Report at 12, ¶ 1; Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A-4. As the Astro minivan involved in the accident had a factory-installed “cage” for commercial use inside the rear area of the minivan, access to its passenger compartment could not be gained through the minivan’s rear doors. Dreyer Deposition at 76, 78. Intending to enter the minivan through the driver’s side door, Dreyer, while moving along the side of the minivan toward the driver’s side door and attempting to support himself by gripping the minivan’s roof with his hands, stepped on the exposed portion of the fully extended hydraulic piston rod. Proctor Report at 12, ¶ 1; Dreyer Deposition at 76-78; Vincent Deposition at 30; Ferguson Deposition at 19. However, Dreyer lost his balance in a high wind gust and slipped, falling eight feet to the ground. Id. As a result of the fall, Dreyer suffered a broken right ankle, a fractured right elbow, and an injury to his right wrist requiring five surgeries as of March 15, 1999 when Dreyer was deposed. Proctor Report at 12, ¶ 2. Vincent testified that in order to obtain access to the driver side door of a minivan loaded, as in this case, front-end-first in the Model 3200’s No. 2 position, a driver must “lean[ ] in towards [the minivan] trying to keep your balance as best you could.” [sic] Vincent Deposition at 30. Because of a slight bulge in the shape of the minivan, Vincent estimated a driver has about five inches of footing on the ramp surface on each side of the loaded minivan. Id. at 43. Additionally, because of the limited width of the ramps, the wider shape of an Astro minivan, compared to other models, and the absence of baggage rails along the length of its roof which drivers could grip to help secure themselves, Harold Banks, another experienced Model 3200 driver, testified that in order to unload an Astro minivan from the No. 2 position, it is necessary for the driver to step on the exposed piston of the hydraulic cylinder as “it’s the only way you can get across [the cylinder] to get into that van.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit M (Deposition of Harold Banks, September 29, 2000) (“Banks Deposition”) at 19 (bracketed material added). Alexander L. Faler, a driver trainer for Model 3200 drivers, employed by Allied Holdings, Inc., successor to CCI, testified that he had observed drivers approaching loaded vehicles by walking up the ramps from the rear of the autohauler and stepping on the exposed piston in order to gain access to the driver’s side door of the vehicles, and that such mode of access was “common practice” by drivers despite verbal warnings that it was unsafe to do so. (Deposition of Alexander L. Faler, Sept. 28, 2000) (“Faler Deposition”). Faler also testified he was aware of other drivers falling from the head ramp area of the Model 3200, similar to Dreyer’s accident. Id. at 16. In preparing his report, Proctor inspected the autohauler and observed an experienced drivér, Faler, load and unload a minivan'from the No. 2 position as a basis for Proctor’s opinion that the Model 3200 autohauler was not defectively designed because the accident resulted from Dreyer’s own negligence in improperly loading the minivan front-end-first, instead of backing the vehicle into the No. 2 position, and in Dreyer’s attempt to unload it during high winds, without maintaining a three-point stance, and while under the possible influence of prescription medications. Proctor Report at 13, ¶ 11. Au-tohauler drivers, including Dreyer, are trained to maintain a three-point stance, i.e., three limbs in contact with the auto-hauler and load at all times while loading or unloading. Proctor Report at 11, ¶ ¶ 2-3. According to Proctor, Dreyer’s decision to load the Astro minivan front-end-first on the Model 3200’s No. 2 position prevented Dreyer from being able to maintain a stable three-point stance while unloading the minivan from the No. 2 position. Proctor Deposition at 182, 198-97; Defendants’ Memorandum at 8-9. Dreyer’s failure to load and unload the minivan so as to assure maintaining the three-point stance, as Dreyer’s training dictated, was, according to Proctor, the primary cause of the accident. Proctor Deposition at 94, 165, 178, 182-84; Defendants’ Memorandum at 4, 8-9. In preparation for his report, Proctor did not attempt to reconstruct the accident as he deemed it too dangerous to do so. Proctor Deposition at 74, 177. Nor did Proctor take any measurements, perform any tests, review the Model 3200’s blueprints, or refer to the experience of Model 3200 drivers, like Banks, Ferguson and, Vincent, regarding safety issues in loading and unloading the Model 3200, review a videotape of Plaintiffs’ demonstration of loading and accessing to the head-ramp area, replicating Dreyer’s actions prior to the accident, consider Dreyer’s training experience, or prior safety studies of the Model 3200 regarding driver falls from the headramp conducted by academic researchers. Proctor Deposition at 44, 50-51, 73-74,103-04; Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 9. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs contend that Proctor is not qualified to give expert testimony pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 (“Rule 702”) on the issues presented for determination of the jury in this case. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 1-2. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that although Proctor is a trained mechanical engineer and a licensed professional engineer, he lacks sufficient experience in, or special knowledge of, the design and operation of autohaulers particularly in regard to the risk of driver falls like the one at issue in this case. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs therefore maintain that Proctor’s conclusions and opinions are outside his “field of expertise.” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs further submit that, even if Proctor is qualified as an expert, because Proctor’s opinions lack a reliable scientific or other technical basis, they must be excluded under Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (“Daubert”). Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 2. In particular, Plaintiffs point to the fact that Proctor did not attempt to reconstruct the accident, conduct tests, take measurements, or review designs of the Model 3200. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 1. Nor, Plaintiffs argue, did Proctor consider driver experience in loading and unloading autohaulers, the feasibility of additional safety features for the Model 3200 or the findings and recommendations of outside safety studies concerning the risk of driver falls from autohaulers like the Model 3200. Id. at 2, 13. Further, Plaintiffs assert Proctor did not purport to base his findings .upon any scientific or engineering methodology, or provide any technical, explanation for his conclusions. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 15. Finally, Plaintiffs contend Proctor’s conclusions that statistical evidence supports finding the Model 3200 was properly designed was based on unverified data, and that Proctor’s opinion that Dreyer was adversely affected at the time of the accident by prescription medications is lacking in any expert knowledge. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 22-25, 28. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not persuasively shown Proctor’s qualifications are insufficient. Defendants’ Memorandum at 5. Defendants assert Proctor’s academic training and doctorate in mechanical engineering, his status as licensed professional engineer, his research, teaching, and consulting experiences with the autohauler industry, and as an expert witness in other litigation, support a finding of expert qualification for Proctor in this case under Rule 702. Id. at 5-6. Proctor also stated he has expertise in the field of human-machine interface problems based on post-doctoral studies of leading treatises in this subject area. Proctor Deposition at 17-18. Particularly, Defendants contend Proctor’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ claims of an asserted design defect in the Model 3200 is supported by Proctor’s calculation of a low “injury per exposure rate” based on Defendants’ accident data pertaining to driver falls from the Model 3200. Id., at 6. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs’ opposition to Proctor’s conclusions regarding the potential and adverse effects of Dreyer’s medications are not “plausible.” Defendants’ Memorandum at 9. • In this case, Proctor’s Report and testimony should be excluded because Defendants have failed to meet them burden to show that (1) Proctor qualifies under Rule 702 to give expert testimony on whether the Model 3200 was negligently designed and whether Dreyer’s negligence caused his injuries; (2) Proctor’s findings and opinions are relevant to the issues likely to be presented to the jury; and (3) even assuming their relevance, there is a reliable scientific or technical basis for Proctor’s opinions, and that they are grounded upon sufficient facts or data as required by Rule 702 and Daubert. 1. Proctor’s Qualifications In federal court, persons qualified as experts in the relevant subject may offer opinion testimony involving “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge” if such testimony “will assist the fact trier” in understanding the evidence or determining an issue of fact provided “(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” Fed.R.Civ. 702. Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 104(a) (“Rule 104(a)”), the proponent of the expert testimony carries the burden to establish that the proffered testimony satisfies the requirements for admissibility under Rule 702. Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F.Supp.2d 708, 718-19 (D.Vt.2002) (citing cases), aff'd, 69 Fed.Appx. 485 (2d Cir.2003) (table); Freeport-McMoran Resource Partners Ltd. Partnership v. B-B Paint Corp., 56 F.Supp.2d 823, 832 (E.D.Mich.1999); Advisory Committee Notes 2000 Amendments to Rule 702 (“Under [Fed.R.Evid. 104(a) ] the proponent [of the expert testimony] has the burden of establishing that the pertinent admissibility requirements are met by a preponderance of the evidence.”) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). Thus, Defendants carry the burden to establish Proctor is qualified to testify as an expert witness in this case and that his opinions meet Rule 702 and Daubert requirements. Pursuant to Rule 104(a), the party seeking to qualify a witness as an expert must establish that the witness possesses “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge,” relevant to issues in the case, as required by Rule 702, based on the witness’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” Rule 702. Whether a witness possesses these attributes sufficient to qualify as an expert witness in the particular case “is within the broad discretion” of the court. Stagl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 117 F.3d 76, 81 (2d Cir.1997) (citing Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir.1996) (per curium)). While the court approaches the question of expert qualification with “liberality and feasibility” and avoids subjecting the witness to “an overly narrow test of his qualifications,” nevertheless, the expert must “stay within the reasonable confines of his subject area, and cannot render expert opinion on an entirely different field or discipline.” Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 857 F.Supp. 222, 227-28 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (citing cases), aff'd, 101 F.3d 682 (2d Cir.1996) (table). Further, in assessing qualifications, the court should take care not to preclude an expert for lack of specific experience in the area of product design at issue so as to limit the source of qualified experts for the plaintiff to persons with direct experience in the industry of which the defendant is a member. Stagl, supra, at 81. However, a witness who otherwise may possess sufficient professional credentials to qualify as an expert in the particular cáse yet fails to employ investigative techniques sufficient to give a reliable opinion or is unable to explain the technical basis for his opinion, may be disqualified. See Mannix v. Chrysler Corp., 2001 WL 477291 (E.D.N.Y. March 4, 2001) (mechanical and professional engineer who could not explain with sufficient technical support the reasons for his opinion, i.e., that an airbag suspected of starting fire causing plaintiffs injuries was defectively designed, lacked qualifications as an expert on issue of defective design of, airbag in product liability case). Compare Stagl, supra (reversing district court’s exclusion of expert witness for lack of direct experience, in the design of airport baggage retrieval system as unreasonably narrowing the pool of available experts for plaintiff). Thus, as the court finds in this case, a witness objectively competent to testify as an expert may, by his failure to apply such apparent expertise to the issues upon which expert testimony could assist the jury, render himself disqualified as an expert. See Mannix, supra. Further, where an expert’s opinion exceeds the scope of his qualifications, the witness’s opinions are subject to exclusion. See Stagl, 117 F.3d at 81 (“courts may properly conclude that witnesses are insufficiently qualified despite the relevance of their testimony because their expertise is too general or too deficient”). Unlike the courts in Lappe and Stagl, here the court has the benefit of an extensive deposition (435 pages over two days) of Proctor with which to evaluate whether Proctor, notwithstanding numerous credentials, is competent to serve as an expert with regard to the particular issues in this ease. As to Proctor’s qualifications, there are several undisputed facts demonstrating Proctor lacks sufficient competency, under Rule 702’s criteria, to give expert testimony in this case. First, Rule 702 expressly requires that to testify as an expert, the witness must be shown to qualify as an expert by virtue of “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education that will assist the jury in understanding evidence or determining a fact in issue.” Fed.R.Evid. 702. Here, as noted, the primary issues for the jury will be whether the Model 3200 suffered from a design defect that contributed to Dreyer’s fall, the risk of which should have been reasonably foreseen requiring additional safety features to prevent such a fall, and whether Dreyer’s loading and unloading of the Astro minivan under the circumstances confronting Dreyer were negligent causes contributing to the accident! While Defendants contend Proctor has “specific expertise in car hauling trailers and securement systems,” Defendants’ Memorandum at 6, Defendants fail to point to any facts sufficient to support this assertion, as is their burden, and a close reading of the record indicates otherwise. Specifically, although Proctor holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering, Proctor Report at 1; Proctor Deposition at 12-13, is a licensed professional engineer, and has pursued independent study in the subject of biomechanics, particularly “rachet securement systems used in the autohauler industry,” Proctor Report at 2; Proctor Deposition at 13-14, Proctor has no direct experience in the design of an autohauler, Proctor Deposition at 10, nor do any of his numerous publications or teaching assignments deal, directly or indirectly, with the design of any similar devices or machines. See Proctor Report Appendix 1, 2 (passim). While Proctor has taught courses on the subject of mechanical engineering design, nothing in the record suggests how these courses might relate to the design of a major industrial product like an autohau-ler. Significantly, when asked to explain how a designer would go about assessing the foreseeability of user risk in connection with a product, Proctor was unable to give a direct answer stating the answer would be in “different books” and his class “notes.” Proctor Deposition at 25-26. Asked how he would advise students to learn about worker fall suppression design problems, Proctor responded that he would refer them to unspecific OSHA regulations. Proctor Deposition at 37-38. Awareness that OSHA regulations should be consulted in.designing products for the workplace does not require special technical skill, education, knowledge, experience or training of an engineering nature, and, Proctor made no attempt to explain how such regulations would be of assistance in the safe design of a complex mechanical product like an autohauler. Further, none of Proctor’s consulting engagements have involved autohauler fall protection systems. Proctor Deposition at 9. For instance, a careful review of Proctor’s publication list, Proctor Report Appendix 1, reveals nearly all of Proctor’s publications involve issues relating to problems of industrial pollution; none are directed to the proper design and safe operation of industrial or commercial products, particularly, as relevant to this case, autohaulers like Defendants’ Model 3200. Additionally, while Proctor has participated in the design of “a couple” of consumer and industrial products, Proctor Deposition at 10, none of his design experiences relate to the “autohauler industry.” Id. Except for unspecified consulting work for the autohauler industry other than issues pertaining to the autohaulers’ rachet tie-down systems, Proctor has had no special education, professional experience or training regarding the autohauler industry. Id. at 11-12. Further, as noted, although Defendants assert Proctor has “specific expertise in car hauling trailers,” Defendants Memorandum at 6, Defendants do not claim Proctor’s “expertise” includes the design of autohaulers, the primary issue in this ease. Here, it is evident that Proctor’s expertise as it relates to autohaulers is directed to safety issues regarding failure of the tie-down rachet system used to secure vehicles on an autohauler. Finally, Proctor does not explain how his education, training and experience relates to the primary issues in this case, nor is such relevance otherwise provided in the record. The court therefore finds that expertise regarding whether an autohauler’s tie down system was properly designed does not extend to questions of fall prevention design issues, and driver negligence during loading and unloading. Accordingly, Proctor’s findings and opinions in this case are “outside the reasonable confines of his qualifications.” Lappe, supra. Any suggestion that Proctor, as a mechanical engineer and licensed professional engineer, possesses such “expertise” in the design of an autohauler is further negated by the deposition testimony of Earl Lemp-ke, the head of Defendant Delavan’s engineering department and Peter J. Terzian, Delavan’s plant manager, who were directly involved in the design of the Model 3200. Lempke Deposition at 21; Terzian Deposition at 23. Lempke testified that, prior to being employed by Delavan, he had studied engineering for two years at a local university, forty years prior to the time the Model 3200 was designed, without achieving a degree. Id. at 4. Terzian, who holds a GED diploma, has no engineering training or background. Terzian Deposition at 38. Based on Lempke’s and Terzi-an’s testimonies, the ability to design an autohauler does not require special degree of formal engineering education, as such capacity is primarily based on experience in the actual design of autohaulers. That Proctor has no experience in the design of an autohauler is further demonstrated by his testimony that he agreed that if Earl Lempke, a non-engineer, vice president of engineering for Defendant Delavan, believed additional safety features, as Plaintiffs contend should have been incorporated in the Model 3200 from which Dreyer fell, could be feasibly added to the Model 3200, an issue that reasonably calls for some technical knowledge, Proctor would agree with Lempke’s assessment. Proctor Deposition at 388. Lempke did so testify. Lempke Deposition at 77. Proctor’s lack of experience or training in autohauler design therefore disqualifies him from opining as to the safe design of the Model 3200. Additionally, Proctor’s qualifications as an expert on issues of autohauler design are not established by Proctor’s reliance on engineering treatises. For example, in support of his conclusion that the Model 3200 was properly designed, Proctor Report at 12-13, Proctor testified that good engineering design practice required that the designer consider the purposes and users of the product together as well as the potential for its misuse by a likely user. Proctor Deposition at 24-25. In support of this principle, Proctor cited to several engineering texts, i.e., Konz, WORK DESIGN AND INDUSTRIAL ERGONOMICS; Woodson, HUMAN FACTORS DESIGN HANDBOOK, Proctor Deposition at 52, and Earle, DESIGN HANDBOOK, id. at 117. However, other than reiterating the generalized references to good engineering design principles regarding the need to consider foreseeable uses, as discussed, according to Proctor, in these standard treatises, Proctor failed to make any attempt to apply such principles to the facts of the instant case in either his Report or deposition testimony. Specifically, Proctor testified that because the design of the Model 3200 was in his opinion “appropriate,” Proctor Deposition at 32, it was not necessary that he consider whether Dreyer’s negligent use of the Model 3200, as determined by Proctor, Proctor Report at 13; Proctor Deposition at 79-80, should reasonably have been foreseen by the designers of the Model 3200. No explanation is given by Proctor of how the general good engineering principles expounded by Proctor based on the cited treatises, and as applied to the facts of the case, support his conclusion that the Model 3200’s design was “appropriate.” Failure by a witness to determine whether, in applying the witness’s expertise, a design defect exists in the accused product justifies disqualification despité the witness’s apparent qualifications. Mannix, supra, at *1. Specifically, when asked to explain how he would apply the general good engineering practice design principles, Proctor asserted were discussed in the textbooks he cited to an actual product design assignment, such as an autohauler, in regard to the potential for product abuse, Proctor responded that the answer was beyond the scope of the deposition. Proctor Deposition at 25-27. Proctor’s inability to explain, within the relatively flexible confines of a pretrial deposition of a proposed expert witness, how the good engineering practices referred to by Proctor would be applied to minimize the risk of a possibly foreseeable product misuse, such as improper loading or unloading procedures by a driver of an autohauler like the Model 3200, demonstrates Proctor lacks competency to assist the jury in understanding the issues. See Mannix, supra. In this court’s view, an expert who is incapable of explaining forthrightly basic concepts within his claimed area of expertise, as they apply to the issues in a case upon which his expertise is sought, at a deposition is not competent to offer testimony to the jury on such matters. In fact, the generalized good engineering design standards articulated by Proctor, based on the cited treatises, that a designer of an industrial product consider the purposes of the product and its users as well as the possibility of misuse, do not appear significantly different from the general legal test for product liability. See Discussion, infra, at 434-36. As such, they fail to constitute information of a technical engineering nature sufficient to warrant giving expert testimony under Rule 702. Moreover, Proctor’s inability to explain with any reasonable technical detail how the questions of proper design, anticipating how possible worker falls should be addressed by a product’s design, is indicative of a fundamental unreliability under Daubert’s requirements. See Mannix, supra. Such difficulties also point to the conclusion that Proctor is straying beyond the reasonable limits of his expertise in regard to autohauler design and manufacture. See Stagl, supra at 81; Lappe, supra, at 227. While Proctor referenced, among his qualifications, several trials at which he was allowed to give expert testimony, none of them involved an issue of design defect based on a fall from an autohauler or similar product. See Proctor Deposition at 56-70. In the one case mentioned by Proctor, involving a worker fall from a piece of industrial machinery, Proctor’s opinion was that the accident was caused by a failure of a hydraulic fitting, and he could not recall giving any testimony regarding the need for a fall prevention system on the machine. Id. at 61. Significantly, Proctor agreed he has never testified as the cause of operator falls from industrial equipment. Id. at 60-61. Further, although Proctor stated he has acquired expertise in human-machine interface matters, such knowledge did not result, according to Proctor, from actual scientific or engineering studies but, rather, from his reading standard texts on the subject. Proctor Deposition at 17-18. Such “post-Doctoral study,” as Proctor put it, id., contrasts sharply with the “in depth” work in the field of the “interaction between people and machinery,” found to be sufficient to qualify plaintiffs expert in Stagl. Stagl, 117 F.3d at 82. See also McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Company, 61 F.3d 1038, 1041-43 (2d Cir.1995) (consulting engineer with “extensive experience,” including 15 years of research on subject of fumes or vapors in workplace qualified to testify on issue of effect of fumes on plaintiff despite lack of formal education on fume dispersion patterns or experience in interpreting air quality studies). Therefore, as Proctor lacks any special knowledge or experience in the design of autohaulers, particularly regarding driver fall prevention issues, or even other complex machinery requiring direct human involvement for their operation, is unable to explain the application of general engineering design principles to the issues in this case in a straight forward manner that could assist in the jury’s understanding of the evidence in the case without direct reference to technical treatises or his class notes, and has insufficient expertise in human-machine interface issues; Proctor is not qualified to testify as to the adequacy of the Model 3200’s design regarding the potential risk of driver falls. Nor is Proctor qualified to testify on the issue of Dreyer’s comparative negligence as a cause of the accident in support of Defendants’ primary defense in this case. Proctor’s opinions relating to this issue are based on his observation of an attempted recreation of the accident by an Allied employee, Proctor Report at 11, ¶ 1; Proctor Deposition at 73-75, the training Proctor received from Defendants on the proper loading and unloading methods for the Model 3200, Proctor Deposition at 85-87, and Proctor’s opinion that Dreyer may have been impaired by potential side-effects of prescription medications Dreyer had taken at the time of the accident. Proctor Report at 14; Proctor Deposition at 424. None of these factors, even taking into account Proctor’s engineering and other credentials, support a finding that Proctor is qualified to provide expert testimony on these issues. First, neither Proctor’s Report nor his deposition testimony points to any body of scientific or generally accepted engineering principles that may be reliably applied in assessing whether a worker’s use of an industrial product in general, or a driver’s manner of loading or unloading an auto-hauler- in particular, is negligent. Such deficiency includes Proctor’s observed demonstration by Defendants of the loading and unloading of minivans on the Model 3200 as Proctor does not claim to be an accident reconstruction expert, and his failure to reconstruct Dreyer’s accident because, as Proctor asserted, such reconstruction would be too dangerous. Proctor Deposition at 74, 177. Compare Lappe, supra, at 227 (expert witness with Ph.D in biomedical engineering without. direct experience in auto design qualified as an expert in defective design case based on extensive experience in accident reconstruction and analysis of vehicular accidents). Second, Proctor’s conclusion that Dreyer failed to properly load and unload the As-tro minivan while maintaining the “three-point stance” is based, not on any principles of mechanical or biomechanical engineering, but on both the training Proctor received from Defendants in the operation of the Model 3200, Proctor Deposition at 85-87, and Proctor’s opinion that unloading the Astro minivan under the conditions presented constituted a lack of common sense and good judgment on Dreyer’s part. Proctor Report at 13; Proctor Deposition at 409-10. However, Proctor’s only actual hands-on training as relevant to this case was limited to the loading of a Model 3200, not its unloading, and Proctor has no experience in operating a fully loaded autohauler under normal commercial delivery conditions. Proctor Deposition at 85, 87, 114. Indeed, much of Proctor’s training on the proper operation of a Model 3200 was gleaned from reading manuals and watching videotapes supplied .by Defendants. Id. at 102-03. Moreover, Proctor’s hands-on .training in loading vehicles on the autohaulers was with Defendants’ Model 2827, not the 3200. Id. at 429-31. As, based on the training received from Defendants, Proctor lacks any significant experience in the proper operation of a Model 3200, particularly the unloading of vehicles from its headramp, the court finds he does not qualify to give expert testimony as to Dreyer’s negligence on this ground. See Byrne v. Liquid Asphalt Systems, Inc., 238 F.Supp.2d 491-95 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (excluding witness who would testify as to “more practical” design for an “asphalt kettle” as witness had neither built nor worked on any asphalt kettle but had only observed an asphalt kettle in operation four or five times over a 50 year period). Third, while experience can provide the basis to qualify a witness as an expert, the experience must be demonstrated and have direct relevance to the issues in the case. Wilson v. Woods, 163 F.3d 935, 938 (5th Cir.1999) (proposed accident reconstruction expert who had not taught accident reconstruction courses, never experimented, conducted field studies, or published on the subject, not qualified as expert witness); Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 874 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 808, 116 S.Ct. 53, 133 L.Ed.2d 18 (1995) (proposed expert who lacked familiarity with arrest procedures at issue not qualified); Prohaska v. Sofamor, S.N.C., 138 F.Supp.2d 422, 436 (W.D.N.Y.2001) (board certified neurosurgeon who lacked experience in performing specific type of implant surgery at issue not qualified as an expert on the issue of product liability as a matter of skill, experience or training); Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 1437, 1443-44 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (internist with limited experience in diagnosing PCB related illness not qualified to testify that plaintiffs injuries were caused by exposure to PCB’s from defendant’s electrical transformers). Compare Kelsay v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 749 F.2d 437, 448 (7th Cir.1984) (police officer with experience in investigating 20 prior railroad crossing accidents qualified as expert to testify that cause of accident was driver inattention). Here, Proctor has not demonstrated experience in the field of accident reconstruction and in evaluating driver negligence as a defense to claims based on Defendants Model 3200 alleged defect or other autohaulers by investigating prior accidents involving falls from autohaulers similar to Dreyer’s, nor has Proctor conducted any research, accident reconstruction, field tests or experiments, or published articles on the subject of driver misuse or negligent operation of autohaulers or other types of trucks or autos, in particular, or on the issue of industrial product misuse and operator workplace negligence in general. Compare DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co. 388 F.2d 18, 20 (2d Cir.1968) (where the challenged expert’s opinion permitted by' the court was that a design defect, which allowed a power press to recycle while the operator’s hand was inside the press, was the cause of plaintiffs injury). Here, as discussed, Discussion, infra, at 438-42, no similar technical explanation is required to explain the cause of Dreyer’s injury as determined by Proctor. Fourth, Proctor opined that Dreyer’s accident may have been caused by Dreyer’s prescription medications, Depakote and Ritalin, and that such usage, in conjunction with the adverse conditions existing at the time of the accident, also constituted negligent conduct by Dreyer. Proctor Report at 14; Proctor Deposition at 424. However, Proctor admitted he was untrained in pharmacology, Proctor Deposition at 420-21, and had no special knowledge or expertise concerning the potential side effects upon a worker like Dreyer from the medications. Id. at 420. Rather, Proctor’s knowledge of such potential side effects was based on reading publically available information he obtained from the Internet. As such, Proctor’s knowledge on this particular subject is no better than that of any layman with access to these sources. See Stagl, supra, at 82 (expert knowledge needed to qualify under Rule 702 should be information “most likely beyond the knowledge of an average juror.”) While Proctor asserted that his mechanical engineering and biomechanics background enabled him to opine that Dreyer may have been adversely affected by the medications, id. at 423, neither Proctor nor Defendants attempt to explain how such engineering and biomechanical knowledge extends to questions regarding the side effects from prescription medications on the risk of worker on-the-job injuries sufficient to qualify Proctor as an expert on this subject. Prohaska, supra, at 436-37 (witness who lacks specific knowledge, skill, experience or training in subject matter at issue disqualified as an expert); Mancuso, supra, at 1442-44 (lack of extensive experience and absence of formal training requires disqualification); Lappe, supra, at 227-28 (expert not permitted to opine on subject beyond field of expertise). Compare McCullock, supra, at 1041-43 (“extensive experience” in working with particular subject matter at issue in case sufficient to qualify witness as an expert despite lack of formal education). As discussed, it is Defendants’ burden to satisfy the court as to Proctor’s claimed expertise on this and other subjects in this case. Rule 103(a). Defendants have notably failed to do so. Proctor appears to be, as Defendants contend, Defendants’ Memorandum at 5-6, a well-credentialed mechanical engineer; however, Daubert requires federal courts evaluate all proffered expert testimony, when challenged under Rule 702, on a case-by-case basis, and directs district courts not to merely ‘rubber-stamp’ such evidence based solely upon the expert’s resumé, including any testimonial history. In this case, Proctor’s report runs 36 pages and includes a biography, teaching assignments, a listing of consultant engagements, professional publications, past trial testimony, professional membership and related activities, and descriptions of Ritalin, Depakote, and Clozapine obtained from an Internet source. Significantly, the portion of the report devoted to Dreyer’s accident and Proctor’s opinions regarding its cause and the safe design of the Model 3200 accounts for just over three pages. Further, a careful review of Proctor’s publication list, Proctor Report Appendix 1, reveals nearly all Proctor’s publications involve issues relating to problems of industrial pollution; none are directed at issues of safety considerations related to the design or manufacture of large-scale and complex industrial or commercial products, particularly autohaulers like Defendants’ Model 3200. Further, while according to Appendix 3 of his Report, Proctor has testified in at least 22 trials, only two relate to accidents involving an autohauler, and one of these specifically relates to product liability arising from the plaintiffs use of a tie-down ratchet mechanism, Proctor’s Report at 28, an issue not involved in Dreyer’s case. The other case, Street v. Ryder, id. at 27, also involves an autohauler, but the description provided fails to state whether the case involved alleged design defect issues similar to those in the instant case. As noted, Defendants represent that Proctor was recently allowed to testify in the Eastern District of Missouri against GACS, and in a product liability case involving an autohauler in the Southern District of Illinois, Defendants’ Memorandum at 6, but Defendants fail to explain whether the plaintiffs’ liability theories in those cases are similar to those in this case, and whether Proctor’s testimony was chall