Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n (564 F. Supp. 2d 322, 2008)

OPINION

SIMANDLE, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of Plaintiffs allegations that during the 1995-1996 academic year, Defendants subjected her son to unlawful discrimination on account of his learning disability. After its protracted history, this eleven-year old case is finally set for trial. Presently before the Court are a series of in limine motions filed by Defendants: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs case as a sanction for having failed, until recently, to produce various expert-witness-related documents that Plaintiff was required to disclose to Defendants under the terms of a discovery Order that had been entered on September 15, 2004 [Docket Item 450]; and (2) Defendants’ motions in limine under Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs four expert witnesses, Drs. Roberts, O’Brien,- Stodden, and Hishinuma [Docket Items 385, 386, 395, and 400].

Mindful of the repeated admonition of the Court of Appeals that “[dismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort,” Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 869 (3d Cir.1984), the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for dismissal sanctions. At the same time, as the Court explains below, it finds extremely troubling Plaintiffs multiple failures of disclosure, until the eve of trial and after oral arguments on the parties’ expansive in limine motions, of numerous draft expert reports and correspondence that Plaintiff was required, under the terms of an unambiguous 2004 Discovery Order, to produce for Defendants more than three years ago. With regard to Drs. O’Brien and Stodden, the Court finds that Plaintiffs belated disclosure has not only prejudiced Defendants, but has supplied additional reasons indicating that many of those experts’ opinions are insufficiently reliable under Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., to be admissible at trial.

As to Plaintiffs remaining experts, Drs. Roberts and Hishinuma, the Court finds that Defendants have not been prejudiced by Plaintiffs belated disclosure, and that no discovery sanction is called for. The Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motions to exclude those experts’ testimony under Rule 702, as is explained in detail below.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Michael Bowers

The facts and procedural history of this case have been discussed in detail in numerous opinions issued by this Court and the Court of Appeals, and the following summary reviews only those facts that pertain to the instant motions. At issue in this action are the policies of the NCAA pertaining to the initial eligibility of student athletes for participation in Division I intercollegiate athletics programs as they existed in 1995-1996, when Plaintiffs late son, Michael Bowers (“Bowers”), submitted an application to the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse (the “Clearinghouse”), the organization responsible for assessing the eligibility of potential student athletes to participate in college sports. The late Michael Bowers was an excellent high school football player at Palmyra High School who sought to play college football in a top-echelon intercollegiate football program. Most of Michael Bowers’ high school courses were in special education classes rather than college-preparatory courses, and Plaintiff alleges that Michael suffered from a disability.

At the time of the 1995-1996 school year, the Clearinghouse reviewed students’ applications and placed applicants into one of three categories: qualifier, partial qualifier, or nonqualifier. In brief, Plaintiff alleges that her son was designated as a nonqualifier largely on account of his high school special education curriculum, that such a designation discriminated against him on account of his learning disability, and that the designation negatively impacted his opportunity to receive an athletic scholarship.

In the fall of 1996, after the football scholarship and recruiting opportunities dried up, Bowers enrolled at Temple University as a commuter student, although he did not begin taking classes that semester because he was scheduled to have back surgery. In the spring 1997 semester, Bowers earned a 3.63 GPA at Temple and made the Dean’s List. By November 1997, however, Bowers’ life had taken a turn for the worse: he complained to his physician about being depressed about breaking up with his girlfriend and was prescribed antidepressant medication, and his grades began to drop and he failed to complete several courses and dropped out.

In addition, Bowers had started to abuse drugs. Bowers was prescribed numerous painkillers between 1996 and 1997 in order to treat the pain he experienced as a result of a back injury, and ultimately, he became addicted to these medications and started obtaining them illegally. In addition, by August 1998, Bowers started using cocaine and heroin. For nearly four years, Bowers received treatment for his substance abuse and mental health problems, and in June 2002, he died as a result of a drug overdose. His undisclosed drug abuse and treatment occurred while substantial discovery was underway in this case, including his own depositions and several examinations by Plaintiffs proposed experts, as discussed below.

B. Procedural History

Bowers filed the original Complaint in this case on May 23, 1997 [Docket Item 1], alleging that the NCAA and the Clearinghouse had violated Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132,12182, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Plaintiff subsequently amended the Complaint to assert additional claims based on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:5-1, et seq., and to name Temple University, the University of Iowa, and the American International College as defendants.

Nearly seven years after this action was initiated — and after considerable discovery and motion practice and numerous decisions by the District Court and the Court of Appeals — and after Michael Bowers died, Plaintiff disclosed to Defendants for first time that Bowers had a substance abuse problem. Thereafter, Defendants moved for the imposition of sanctions in the form of dismissal, arguing that they had been prejudiced as a result of Plaintiffs concealment of Bowers’ substance abuse and drug treatment. On March 21, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order that imposed preclusion sanctions upon Plaintiff. Specifically, the Court found that because

Defendants lack the practical ability to question Mr. Bowers about the full extent and duration of his drug abuse, and thus suffer irreparable prejudice, the records that have belatedly been supplied to Defendants in and after May 2004 must be deemed conclusive and unopposed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall be precluded from disputing the facts shown by direct and circumstantial evidence in the records of Mr. Bowers’s drug abuse and severe depression, and Plaintiff shall be precluded from arguing that gaps in these records give rise to some favorable inference in opposition to summary judgment.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n., No. 97-2600, 2005 WL 5155198, *12 (D.N.J. Mar.21, 2005), overruled in part by 475 F.3d 524 (3d Cir.2007). The Court then addressed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in light of the discovery sanctions it had imposed and determined that the evidence warranted the entry of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Id. at *16.

Plaintiff appealed the March 21, 2005 Opinion and Order, and on February 1, 2007, the Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming in part and reversing in part this Court’s Order. With regard to the question of preclusion sanctions, the Court of Appeals found that

[allowing any information regarding Bowers’ substance abuse to be introduced posthumously by Bowers for her own advantage would thus be patently unfair to Defendants, who were clearly blind-sided by that evidence. As a result, we find the District Court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preclusion sanctions with respect to Bowers’ drug use.

[However, ujnlike Bowers’ drug problems, which would have been readily revealed had he disclosed his treatment with Dr. Gooberman, Defendants were not blind-sided by evidence that Bowers had suffered from depression.

While Bowers’ depression certainly may have become aggravated by and intertwined with his drug abuse at some point, we believe the two can be disentangled for purposes of establishing damages in this case ... Consequently, we conclude the District Court’s blanket preclusion of evidence related to depression reflects a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence in record and was thus an abuse of discretion. We will therefore affirm the sanctions order of the District Court only insofar as it precludes Bowers, in proving damages, from using evidence of his drug abuse and drug abuse-related depression. Furthermore, we reverse the sanctions order insofar as it precludes Bowers from opposing Defendants’ claim that Michael Bowers’ drug abuse rendered him unqualified to participate in a program of intercollegiate athletics at all relevant times.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 475 F.3d 524, 541-42 (3d Cir.2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Court of Appeals also determined that a triable question of fact existed as to whether Bowers was a qualified individual with a disability at the time when Defendants allegedly discriminated against him, and thus reversed the Court’s entry of summary judgment as to Plaintiffs ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NJLAD claims. Id. at 537.

After the matter was remanded, this Court denied Plaintiffs motion to compel the production of additional discovery, see Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 97-2600, 2008 WL 1757929 (D.N.J. Feb.27, 2008), and scheduled a trial date of June 30, 2008. The parties filed numerous in limine motions, including Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs four expert witnesses under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), on which the Court heard oral argument at hearings convened on April 25, 2008 and May 19, 2008 and reserved decision.

C. Recent Allegations of Attorney Misconduct

On the eve of trial, scheduled for June 30, 2008, and after oral arguments on the parties’ in limine motions were heard on April 25, 2008 as well as at an all-day session on May 19, 2008, Plaintiffs attorneys informed the Court and Defendants that they had failed to disclose certain draft expert reports and correspondence that they had been obligated to produce under a Discovery Order issued by Magistrate Judge Rosen on September 15, 2004. Defendants filed a new motion for sanctions in which they argue that Plaintiffs case should be dismissed on account of Plaintiffs counsel’s failure to timely disclose these materials. The Court then convened oral argument on this motion for sanctions and supplemental argument upon the impacts of these disclosures upon the Dauberb in limine motions on June 18, 2008, for several hours. The relevant facts surrounding the newly disclosed draft reports, and the allegations of misconduct underlying Defendants’ motion, are summarized below.

1. Magistrate Judge Rosen’s Discovery Order

On September 15, 2004, Magistrate Judge Rosen entered an Order pertaining to the parties’ discovery obligations. This Order, entered in the wake of the revelation that Plaintiff had concealed evidence of Bowers’ drug abuse, was broad in scope and aimed at shedding light upon Bowers’ previously undisclosed substance abuse history. The Order provided, inter alia, that

each expert designated by a party in this case is required to produce notes and other written records (1) of communication with Michael Bowers and Kathleen Bowers or (2) that were created, considered, or reviewed in any manner in connection with the experts’ engagement as an expert in the instant litigation including examination of Michael Bowers, evaluation of Michael Bowers, or preparation of any expert report.

(Defs.’ Br. Ex. A at 2.) The Order plainly required disclosure of correspondence and emails between Plaintiffs counsel and the expert witnesses, as well as all drafts of reports created by the experts or by counsel. In the fall of 2004, following the entry of Magistrate Judge Rosen’s Order, counsel for Plaintiff reviewed their hard copy files, (Bazelon Decl. ¶¶ 15-16), and produced for Defendants the experts’ reports, documents relied upon by the experts, some correspondence between Plaintiffs counsel and the experts, two drafts of the report prepared by Dr. Roberts, and the experts’ notes. (Clarke Decl. ¶ 8; Ransom Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) Importantly for present purposes, defense counsel prepared for deposition and deposed Plaintiffs experts in December 2004 in reliance upon the completeness of these expert witness materials.

2. Failure to Produce Expert Materials and Circumstances of Eventual Disclosure

It is now apparent that in the two months preceding the entry of Magistrate Judge Rosen’s Order, Plaintiffs counsel received numerous drafts of the reports by Drs. O’Brien, Stodden, and Hishinuma that were not timely produced to Defendants following the entry of that Order. With regard to Dr. O’Brien, Plaintiffs counsel received a draft on July 29, 2004, provided feedback to Dr. O’Brien on August 1, and received a copy of Dr. O’Brien’s final report on August 2. (Bazelon Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7-8.) Mr. Bazelon “simply did not call to mind” Dr. O’Brien’s July 29 draft when Magistrate Judge Rosen ordered that such materials be produced on September 15, 2004. (Id. at ¶ 16.) As a result of similar “inad-verten[ce],” (Ransom Decl. ¶ 17), Plaintiffs counsel likewise failed to produce numerous drafts they had received from Drs. Stodden and Hishinuma in August of 2004.

Plaintiffs counsel have represented that they first became aware of the possibility that they had failed to fully comply with the terms of Magistrate Judge Rosen’s Discovery Order on Saturday, May 17, 2008, when Jennifer Clarke, Executive Director of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, was preparing for oral argument on the in limine motions, which was to take place on Monday, May 19, 2008. (Clarke Decl. ¶ 2.) According to Plaintiffs counsel, by the time of the May 19 hearing, the attorneys still had not been able to ascertain whether the documents had or had not been produced, and they chose to proceed with the May 19 arguments without informing the Court or Defendants of the possible non-production in order to determine whether, in fact, such a discovery violation had occurred. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Between May 17 and May 22, Plaintiffs counsel assessed the scope of the discovery violation. (Id.)

On May 22, 2008, after the Court had heard oral argument on the parties’ pending in limine motions, including Defendants’ Daubert motions aimed at excluding the testimony of Plaintiffs experts, counsel for Plaintiff, Richard Bazelon, Esq., sent via facsimile a letter to the Court and to defense counsel stating that

[i]n connection with the oral arguments in the in limine motions this week, a review of the files of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and Bazelon Less & Feldman revealed a number of non-final expert reports which inadvertently were not previously produced to defendants. In addition, several communications were identified which might come within the scope of Judge Rosen’s Order dated September 15, 2004 ...

(Def.’s Br. Ex. C.) The letter further noted that the documents would promptly be provided to Defendants, and that “Plaintiffs counsel will offer to reimburse defense counsel for the time spent at any supplemental depositions, and will also compensate the experts for their time.” (Id.)

In an affidavit submitted in opposition to Defendants’ motion — twenty days after the May 22, 2008 letter-one of Plaintiffs attorneys indicated that Plaintiffs counsel had likewise discovered additional documents relating to the expert report of Dr. Hishi-numa that Plaintiff had been required to produce. (Clarke Dec. ¶ 18.) Upon defense counsel’s request, Plaintiff produced copies of email correspondence between Dr. Hishinuma and Barbara Ransom, one of Plaintiffs attorneys, (Defs.’ Reply Br. Ex. V); this correspondence indicates that Dr. Hishinuma exchanged drafts of his report with Plaintiffs counsel, but the attorneys were, for a time, unable to locate the drafts in their electronic files. (Defs.’ Reply Br. Exs. U and Y.) By June 18, 2008, the date when the Court convened a hearing to hear oral argument on Defendants’ motion for sanctions, Plaintiff had produced additional documents, previously undisclosed, relating to all four of her experts’ reports, including four drafts of Dr. Hishinuma’s report. Almost all of the June 18th production of expert documents were created within several months before an after their disclosures were ordered in the September 15, 2004 Order.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Sanctions

Defendants have moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs case as a sanction for what they argue was the attorneys’ bad faith violation of Magistrate Judge Rosen’s Discovery Order. In the alternative, they argue, under Rule 37(c)(1), F.R. Civ. P., that the Court should exclude the testimony of the experts whose draft reports were not produced as a sanction for the discovery violation. Defendants further argue that the Court should sanction Plaintiffs counsel for their failure to comply with the Discovery Order, although the parties have agreed to postpone argument on this issue until after the conclusion of the trial.

Plaintiff admits that her attorneys’ mistake violated the terms of the Discovery Order, but argues that the nondisclosure was inadvertent and insufficiently prejudicial to warrant the imposition of such drastic sanctions. According to Plaintiff, alternative sanctions — including the re-deposition of Drs. O’Brien and Stodden at Plaintiffs attorneys’ expense, and the imposition of sanctions on the attorneys themselves — are available in this case, making the dismissal sought by Defendants an unnecessarily heavy-handed remedy.

The Court addresses the appropriateness of dismissal and alternative sanctions after setting forth the standards governing the imposition of such sanctions as set forth by the Court of Appeals. As the following discussion makes clear, there is substantial overlap between the standards governing the imposition of dismissal sanctions and the exclusion of witness testimony as a sanction for discovery violations.

1. Standards for Sanctions Under Poulis and Pennypack

It is well-settled that district courts are empowered to dismiss cases in which a party or its attorney has engaged in serious litigation misconduct. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). In a frequently quoted opinion, one district court in this Circuit noted that

[t]he inherent power [to dismiss a case] arises from the very nature of the judicial institution, and is incidental and necessary to the fair and efficient operation of the courts. Thus, the power of the courts to impose silence, decorum, and respect, and to require submission to rules of fair play is universally acknowledged to be vested in courts so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.

Derzack v. County of Allegheny, 173 F.R.D. 400, 411 (W.D.Pa.1996), affd without op., 118 F.3d 1575 (3d Cir.1997) (citations and quotations omitted).

As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly emphasized, however, the entry of dismissal as a discovery sanction is a “drastic” approach, Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867, that is “disfavored absent the most egregious circumstances.” United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141, 161 (3d Cir.2003) (citation omitted). In Poulis, the Court of Appeals expressed its concern that the use of dismissal as a sanction could create an “atmosphere in which the meritorious claims or defenses of innocent parties are no longer the central issue,” and indicated that “[d]ismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 867, 869.

The Poulis court established a six-factor balancing test that courts in this Circuit must apply when addressing a motion for dismissal sanctions. The Court must consider:

(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

Id. at 868 (emphasis omitted). While the appropriateness of dismissal is not contingent upon the satisfaction of all six factors in a given case, “the resolution of any doubts [must be] in favor of adjudication on the merits.” $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d at 162 (citation omitted).

The Court of Appeals has instructed district courts to employ similar caution in contemplating the exclusion of a witness’ testimony as a sanction for the violation of a discovery order. “Rule 16(f)[, F.R. Civ. P.,] enables a judge to sanction a party in violation of a pre-trial or scheduling order. Upon finding a violation, a judge may, for example, preclude expert witness testimony.” Exxon Corp. v. Halcon Shipping Co., Ltd., 156 F.R.D. 589, 591 (D.N.J.1994). In Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n, the Court of Appeals articulated four factors for courts to consider in assessing the appropriateness of such sanctions:

(1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified, (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice, (3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court, and (4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the district court’s order.

559 F.2d 894, 904-05 (3d Cir.1977); see also In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 791-92 (3d Cir.1994).

2. Application to this Case

a. Plaintiffs Personal Responsibility

The first Poulis factor — Plaintiff’s personal responsibility for the misconduct in question-weighs against dismissal. There is no suggestion from any evidence before the Court that Kathleen Bowers was personally responsible for her attorneys’ negligence, and Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff was personally culpable. (Bazelon Decl. ¶ 42.) In Poulis, the court made clear that a party’s “lack of responsibility for [her] counsel’s dilatory conduct is not dispositive, because a client cannot always avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of its counsel.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (citation omitted). As Plaintiff notes, however, the Court of Appeals has “increasingly emphasized visiting sanctions directly on the delinquent lawyer, rather than on a client who is not actually at fault.” Adams v. Trustees of New Jersey Brewery Employees’ Pension Trust Fund, 29 F.3d 863, 873 (3d Cir.1994) (quoting Carter v. Albert Einstein Medical Ctr., 804 F.2d 805, 807 (3d Cir.1986)). Plaintiffs lack of personal responsibility for her attorneys’ conduct thus weighs against the dismissal of her case. Her attorneys were delinquent, but Plaintiff herself was not.

b. Prejudice to Defendants

Under Poulis and Pennypack, a critical consideration is whether the discovery violation has resulted in prejudice to the moving party. As the Court of Appeals has noted, in the discovery violation context, prejudice “does not mean ‘irremediable harm,’ ” but, rather, “the burden imposed by impeding a party’s ability to prepare effectively a full and complete trial strategy is sufficiently prejudicial.” Ware v. Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir.2003); see also Curtis T. Bedwell and Sons, Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins., 843 F.2d 683, 693 (3d Cir.1988). However, in light of Poulis’ requirement that less onerous sanctions be imposed if such lesser sanctions are capable of curing the moving party’s prejudice, Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868, the Court recognizes that the severity of the prejudice caused by the violation should be proportional to the sanction imposed in an effort to cure that prejudice.

The Court must therefore examine whether, and to what extent, Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiffs belated disclosure of expert witness materials. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs failure to make timely disclosure of her experts’ reports deprived Defendants of the opportunity to “test the substance” and “independence” of some of her experts’ opinions, Trigon Ins. Co. v. United States, 204 F.R.D. 277, 289-90 (E.D.Va.2001), which has impaired their capacity to effectively litigate their Daubert motions. See Reed v. Binder, 165 F.R.D. 424, 430 (D.N.J.1996) (noting that “[njothing causes greater prejudice than to have to guess how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion”). The Court’s evaluation of the prejudice engendered by Plaintiffs discovery violation thus requires an examination of the relationship between the undisclosed expert materials and the Defendants’ ability to have addressed the admissibility of the experts’ opinions under Rule 702, F.R. Evid., and Daubert,

i. Dr. O’Brien

Dr. O’Brien, a psychiatrist and professor of psychiatry who also has a law degree, was retained by Plaintiff to assess Bowers’ psychiatric condition and whether Plaintiff suffered from any psychiatric difficulties as a result of Defendants’ alleged discrimination. (Pl.’s Opp’n Br. Ex. 1-B.) Dr. O’Brien conducted a psychiatric examination upon Bowers over the course of two days on December 22, 2001 and March 13, 2002, and based his diagnosis upon his examination, as well as his review of documentary evidence ranging from Bowers’ medical records to his educational records to the transcripts of the testimony of various witnesses in this case. {Id. at 1-12.)

Dr. O’Brien concluded that Bowers suffered from Major Depressive Disorder beginning in November 1997 following the court’s denial of Bowers’ motion for a preliminary injunction in this case, and that his depression was caused by Defendants’ alleged discrimination. (Id. at 13-14.) In concluding that Bowers was depressed in 1997 — four years before Dr. O’Brien conducted his evaluation — Dr. O’Brien relied upon Bowers’ medical records, which indicated that Bowers exhibited depressive symptoms during a visit to his physician, Dr. Switenko, in November 1997. (Id. at 3.)

Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that the belated disclosure of Dr. O’Brien’s draft report prejudiced Defendants’ ability to test the reliability of Dr. O’Brien’s methodology under Daubert. As is explained below, the very aspects of Dr. O’Brien’s report upon which Plaintiff relied in defending Dr. O’Brien’s diagnosis were not even included in the draft report, appearing only after Dr. O’Brien consulted with Mr. Bazelon. Defendants’ inability to question Dr. O’Brien about the independence and reliability of his opinions was prejudicial within the meaning of Poulis and Pennypack.

In their motion challenging the admissibility of Dr. O’Brien’s diagnosis under Rule 702, Defendants argued that although Dr. O’Brien purported to apply the diagnostic criteria set forth in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (“DSM-IV”) in rendering his diagnosis of Bowers’ depression, he failed to account for alternative causes of Bowers’ depression-related symptoms, which is required under the DSM-IV in order to reliably diagnose Major Depressive Disorder. Specifically, Defendants argued that under the DSM-IV, such a diagnosis requires the examiner to find, inter alia, that the subject’s “symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) ...” (Defs.’ Br. Ex. H at 327.) Defendants argued that Dr. O’Brien failed to adequately account for evidence in Plaintiffs medical records suggesting that Bowers was addicted to prescription painkillers in November 1997 when he exhibited symptoms of depression. (Def.’s Br. Ex. K.) Under the terms of Dr. O’Brien’s own methodology, Defendants argued, his diagnosis that Bowers suffered from Major Depressive Disorder in 1997 was not reliable due to his failure to account for such a potential alternative cause of Bowers’ symptoms.

In her opposition to Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. O’Brien’s testimony, Plaintiff argued that Dr. O’Brien had

[good] grounds for concluding that the painkillers did not cause [Bowers’] depression: his good academic performance in Spring and Summer 1997, the Spring 1997 medical examination showing a lack of drug use or addiction and the November 1997 medical records which, while recording symptoms, did not record any clinical concerns about addiction.

(Pl.’s Opp’n Br. 31.) As the belated disclosure of Dr. O’Brien’s draft report reveals, however, the majority of the facts upon which Dr. O’Brien purportedly relied in concluding that Bowers’ use of painkillers did not cause his depressive symptoms in 1997 were absent in his draft report, and appeared only after Dr. O’Brien spoke with Mr. Bazelon in early August, 2004. (Bazelon Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7-8.) Specifically, Dr. O’Brien’s draft report contained no reference to Bowers’ drug-free medical examination in the spring of 1997. (PL’s Opp’n Br. Ex. 1 — C at 2.) Likewise, only after Dr. O’Brien spoke with Mr. Bazelon did his report make reference to the fact that Dr. Switenko’s medical records did “not document any clinical concern th[at] Mr. Bowers had developed or was developing an addiction to opiate medication.” (Id. at 3.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs discovery violations adversely affected their capacity to explore and contest the reliability of Dr. O’Brien’s diagnosis of depression. The potential impact that Plaintiffs counsel may have had on shoring up the grounds for Dr. O’Brien’s diagnosis is a quintessential deposition topic, and it likewise goes to the heart of Defendants’ Daubert motion. See, e.g., Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 430; cf. Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 423 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987) (noting that “an expert who forms an opinion before he begins his research is biased and lacking in objectivity”). The inability of Defendants to question Dr. O’Brien at his deposition about the draft report not only prejudiced their ability to litigate their Daubert motion, but also may have impacted their ability to cross-examine Dr. O’Brien about the contrast between the two reports at trial. See Occulto v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 611, 615 (D.N.J.1989) (observing that “an expert who can be shown to have adopted the attorney’s opinion as his own stands less tall before the jury than an expert who has engaged in painstaking inquiry and analysis before arriving at an opinion”). The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs failure to disclose Dr. O’Brien’s draft report resulted in prejudice to Defendants within the meaning of Poul-is and Pennypack.

ii. Dr. Stodden

Defendants argue that they were also prejudiced by Plaintiffs failure to disclose draft reports produced by another of Plaintiffs expert witnesses, Dr. Stodden, as well as certain correspondence between Dr. Stodden and Plaintiffs counsel. Dr. Stodden, a professor at the College of Education at the University of Hawaii, was retained by Plaintiff to testify as to the experience of disabled students in secondary and postsecondary educational settings. (Pl.’s Opp’n Br. 3-C at 1.) Plaintiff belatedly disclosed to Defendants certain correspondence between Dr. Stodden and Plaintiffs counsel prior to the completion of Dr. Stodden’s report, as well as a draft the report itself.

In arguing that they were prejudiced by Plaintiffs failure to disclose the Stodden expert materials, Defendants point to several differences between the recently disclosed draft and the final report. First, Defendants note that in his final report, but not the draft, Dr. Stodden included a discussion explaining the extent to which both Temple University and the University of Iowa offer support services for students with disabilities. (PL’s Opp’n Br. 3-C at 3-4.) This addition appears to have been made in response to an August 19, 2004 letter from Plaintiffs counsel to Dr. Stod-den requesting that Dr. Stodden discuss in his report “what Temple and Iowa were doing for students with disabilities,” and providing “research materials” on the universities’ disability resources. (Defs.’ Br. Ex. J.) Second, while in his draft report, Dr. Stodden opined that the NCAA’s policies tended to “screen out or catch” disabled applicants, (PL’s Opp’n Br. 3-A at 9), Dr. Stodden re-emphasized this point in his final report by adding a phrase stating that the NCAA’s data “failed to provide any support to the need for the [Clearinghouse] to screen out potential student athletes with learning disabilities to improve retention and completion data.” (PL’s Opp’n Br. Ex. 3-C at ¶ 15.) Third, Defendants note that Dr. Stodden’s final report, but not the draft, contains two paragraphs summarizing his conclusions. (Id. at 18.)

Initially, the Court disagrees with Defendants that they experienced any prejudice as a result of being unable to depose Dr. Stodden about the second and third distinctions between the draft and final reports referenced by Defendants and summarized above. Dr. Stodden’s opinion that the NCAA’s policies tended to screen out disabled applicants and the contents of his summary of conclusions, though perhaps phrased more emphatically in the final report, were plainly evident in his initial drafts. (Id. at 14-18.) Defendants thus were able to depose Dr. Stodden about these matters with the materials available to them, and suffered little to no discernable prejudice with regard to these issues.

However, for substantially reasons similar to those set forth in its discussion of Dr. O’Brien, supra, the Court finds that Defendants were prejudiced as a result of the belated disclosure of Dr. Stodden’s draft report, to the extent that they were unable to question Dr. Stodden during his deposition about the fact that Dr. Stod-den’s opinions about the resources available at Temple and Iowa for learning disabled students was absent in his earlier drafts. See Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 430; Occulto, 125 F.R.D. at 615. His later inclusion of these opinions appears to be based on nothing more than information supplied by Plaintiffs counsel, which defense counsel were unable to explore in the earlier deposition.

iii. Dr. Hishinuma

Finally, Defendants argue that they were prejudiced as a result of Plaintiffs belated disclosure of drafts and correspondence relating to the production of Dr. Hishinuma’s expert report. Defendants focus specifically on Plaintiffs failure to disclose a draft of Dr. Hishinuma’s report dated August 22, 2004, (BH 0033), and an email from Plaintiffs counsel to Dr. Hishi-numa dated August 27, 2004, (BH 0011), in which counsel posed a series of questions to Dr. Hishinuma for him to answer and work into the report. Defendants argue that Dr. Hishinuma’s final report reflected his incorporation of this input from counsel, and that they were prejudiced as a result of their inability to depose Dr. Hish-inuma about the origins and independence of his opinions. Defendants devote particular attention to arguing that Dr. Hishinu-ma’s discussion in his final report about beneficial impact that statistical research has on policy formation was absent in his draft report, and appeared only after Plaintiffs counsel instructed him to insert such a section in the report. (BH 0012.)

If Dr. Hishinuma’s opinion about the importance of such statistical research had not been apparent in his draft report, Defendants’ arguments concerning the prejudice engendered by the nondisclosure of the Hishinuma materials would be forceful, as the Court’s discussion of Drs. O’Brien and Stodden, supra, make clear. However, upon carefully considering the differences between Dr. Hishinuma’s draft and final reports, the Court does not find that Defendants were prejudiced by the belated disclosure of the Hishinuma materials. Dr. Hishinuma’s opinions concerning the importance of statistical research to policy formation were not, as Defendants argue, added in the wake of Ms. Ransom’s August 27, 2004 email, but were instead readily apparent in his August 22, 2004 draft report. (BH 0043-0047.) While Dr. Hishi-numa appears to have reorganized the contents of his reports between the August 22, 2004 draft and the final report, the final report does not appear to contain opinions that were not evident in the draft reports. Defendants were not deprived of the opportunity to test the independence of Dr. Hishinuma’s opinions, because the opinions appeared consistently in the draft and final reports.

As to the belated disclosure of the Hishi-numa materials, then, the Court finds that Defendants were not meaningfully prejudiced by Plaintiffs discovery violation.

c. History of Dilatoriness

Poulis ’ third factor calls upon the Court to determine whether the party that committed the discovery violation has “a history of dilatoriness.” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868. Defendants are correct that this factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Plaintiffs effort to characterize the extremely aggravated discovery misconduct Bowers perpetrated earlier in this case as a “single prior instance ... in a case that has been pending for eleven years,” (Pl.’s Opp’n Br. 27), strains credibility, not only in light of the seriousness of the violation, but also in light of the fact that Bowers’ misconduct plays no small part in the fact that this case has been pending for so long. See Bowers, 475 F.3d at 540 (“The District Court was clearly correct in finding that the failure by Bowers to turn over information regarding his subsequent treatments with physicians for drug addiction from Fall 1998 until his death was willful and in bad faith.”). Because of Plaintiffs prior concealment of drug abuse, addiction and treatment, the parties, and ultimately the jury, are faced with the daunting and nearly metaphysical task of “disentangling” Mr. Bowers’ drug dependence and drug-related depression from the depression Plaintiff now claims was substantially related to Defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct.

d. Willfulness or Bad Faith

The fourth factor under both Poulis and Pennypack addresses whether the party’s failure to comply with discovery obligations was “willful or in bad faith.” Id. The Third Circuit has made clear that in the context of discovery sanctions, willfulness and bad faith “involve[] intentional or self-serving behavior.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 875. By contrast, an attorney’s “negligent behavior” or “failure to move with ... dispatch” — even if “inexcusable” — will not suffice to establish willfulness or bad faith. Id. (citing Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339, 342 (3d Cir.1982)). “In the jurisprudence of dismissal, willfulness or bad faith is almost always required in order for dismissal to be within the proper scope of the court’s discretion.” Estate of Spear v. C.I.R., 41 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir.1994).

Whether the failure of counsel to disclose these draft expert reports was merely negligent or something more also requires examination of the context. This non-disclosure violated Judge Rosen’s Order of September 15, 2004, supra. That Order was entered in the immediate wake of Plaintiffs startling disclosure of drug abuse that had started in the 1996-1997 period. The breadth of Judge Rosen’s Order was unusual, as it was clearly meant to ferret out all possible information that could shed light on Michael Bowers’ concealed mental health and drug abuse history, as well as disability and depression. This should have put Plaintiffs counsel on heightened alert to the significance of disclosing the documents at issue here, most of which were created within a few months before and after September 15, 2004, when this situation was so acute.

With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs discovery violation to determine whether they bear indicia of willfulness or bad faith. First, the Court takes note of the unambiguous nature of the Discovery Order at issue here. Magistrate Judge Rosen directed

each expert designated by a party in this case ... to produce notes and other written records ... that were created, considered, or reviewed in any manner in connection with the experts’ engagement as an expert in the instant litigation including examination of Michael Bowers, evaluation of Michael Bowers, or preparation of any expert report.

(Defs.’ Br. Ex. A at 2.) There is no doubt that the experts’ draft reports fell within the scope of this Order, and, of course, Plaintiff has not suggested otherwise. Cf. ABB Air Preheater, Inc. v. Regenerative Environmental Equipment Co., Inc., 167 F.R.D. 668, 672 (D.N.J.1996) (indicating that where a party’s discovery obligation is ambiguous, sanctions are not appropriate). This Order was entered less than two months after Plaintiffs counsel received at least nine draft reports from three of Plaintiffs expert witnesses — one draft report from Dr. O’Brien, four from Dr. Stod-den, and four from Dr. Hishinuma. The proximity of Plaintiffs receipt of the drafts and the entry of Judge Rosen’s Order, as well as the sheer quantity of undisclosed drafts, casts serious doubt upon Plaintiffs suggestion that the nondisclosure was a mere oversight that happened to be repeated several times over.

More important, in light of the Court of Appeals’ explanation that bad faith and willfulness “involve! ] intentional or self-serving behavior,” Adams, 29 F.3d at 875, is the misleading and inaccurate deposition testimony of Drs. O’Brien and Stodden concerning the existence of draft reports and input from Plaintiffs counsel, and the silence of Plaintiffs attorneys following both witness’ misleading testimony. Just four months after Dr. O’Brien produced a draft report to Plaintiffs counsel and made substantive changes to the report after speaking with Mr. Bazelon, (Bazelon Decl. ¶¶ 3, 9), Dr. O’Brien gave the following deposition testimony:

Q: How many drafts of the report did you make before you finalized the Exhibit 1?

A: Typically, a rough dictation is generated — a rough report is dictated, typed up, transcribed from the original dictation. And then I review it, make changes and try to identify the typographical errors, although! ] there are some still in the actual final report. And then it’s returned to the typist for correction. So there’s only one draft, but it doesn’t survive the corrections. It’s given back to her and corrected and all I have is the final.

(O’Brien Dep. 79.) This testimony, given by a witness with experience testifying as an expert (who is himself an attorney), (id. at 127), plainly misrepresents the fact that Dr. O’Brien had indeed produced a draft, which he had sent to Plaintiffs counsel just months before he was deposed, and upon which he consulted with counsel and produced substantial revisions. The purpose of Defendants’ question — to assess “how and why an adversarial expert reached his or her conclusion,” Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 430 — should have been clear to an experienced witness like Dr. O’Brien, and would certainly have been apparent to Plaintiffs counsel.

Additionally, Dr. O’Brien testified at his deposition as to the feedback he had received from Plaintiffs counsel as follows:

Q.: Did Mr. Bazelon or Barbara Ransom provide comments on your report?

A: I don’t recollect any, no.

(Id. at 156.) It is now apparent, of course, that Dr. O’Brien did receive comments from Mr. Bazelon, (Bazelon Deck ¶ 9), and that he made numerous substantive changes to his report after his conversation with Mr. Bazelon. (Pl.’s Opp’n Br. Ex. 1-C.)

Similarly, Dr. Stodden, who likewise had exchanged drafts with Plaintiffs counsel and made substantive changes at the direction of Ms. Ransom in the months preceding his deposition testimony, (Defs.’ Br. Ex. J), testified as to the input he had received in drafting his report:

Q: Did you receive comments from either Mr. Bazelon or Ms. Ransom?

A: Yes, I think I did.

Q: And did you make changes in your working paper as a result of those discussions?

A: Yes. There were editorial changes that were made.

Q: Would you show us on Exhibit Number 1, to the best of your recollection, where you made changes and what those changes were[?]

A: To the best of my recollection, the changes were primarily edit changes, clarification of wording. That’s probably the best I can do.

(Stodden Dep. 10.) As the review of the changes Dr. Stodden made between drafts makes clear, supra, Dr. Stodden made substantive additions to his report at the request of Plaintiffs counsel; these additions manifestly were not mere “editorial changes.” (Id.) Such testimony was misleading because it concealed the true nature of counsel’s input and the witness’s changes of opinion to be offered in this case.

Taking account of the circumstances of the discovery violations and the deposition testimony of Plaintiffs experts O’Brien and Stodden, the Court is hard-pressed to conclude that the collective silence of two attorneys and two experts as to the input the experts received from the attorneys on their reports, and the silence of the attorneys and Dr. O’Brien as to the existence of his draft report, was simply the result of negligence, or even “inexcusably] negligent behavior.” Adams, 29 F.3d at 875. It is not credible that Plaintiffs counsel did not call to mind any of the drafts they received, any of the conversations they had with their witnesses, or any of the substantive feedback they had given over the contents of the reports as they listened to their witnesses give misleading (or, at absolute minimum, utterly inaccurate) testimony as to the existence of draft reports and the changes the experts made in response to attorney feedback. The proximity of the receipt of drafts to the entry of Judge Rosen’s Order, the quantity of drafts received, and the evident inaccuracy of Drs. O’Brien’s and Stodden’s deposition testimony all undercut counsel’s attribution of their violation to mere inadvertence. The Court is constrained to find that the discovery violation at issue here was the product of “intentional or self-serving behavior.” Id.

e. Availability of Alternative Sanctions

The fifth Poulis factor requires the Court to assess the availability of alternative sanctions short of dismissal, Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868, in recognition of the fact that “[dismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort.” Id. at 869. Similarly, Pennypack calls upon the Court to determine whether the moving party has the ability to cure the prejudice that the discovery violation has caused. Pennypack, 559 F.2d at 904-05.

The Court first notes that a sanction proportionate to the prejudice caused by Plaintiffs violation is available in this case, indicating that dismissal is not an appropriate sanction. As the discussion of the prejudice caused by Plaintiffs discovery violation indicates, supra, the prejudice caused by the violation is limited to discrete subjects of proffered testimony. Specifically, Plaintiffs belated disclosure of draft expert reports deprived Defendants of the opportunity to test the independence and reliability of Dr. O’Brien’s opinion that Bowers suffered from depression in November 1997 and Dr. Stodden’s opinion that Iowa and Temple made certain resources available to learning disabled students. The Court finds that a sanction targeting the specific proffered testimony, rather than dismissal of Plaintiffs claims, is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff argues that the prejudice caused by her discovery violations could be cured by permitting Defendants to re-depose Drs. O’Brien and Stodden regarding the contents of their draft reports at Plaintiffs counsel’s expense. The Court does not find this to be an adequate solution. First, Defendants already deposed Drs. O’Brien and Stodden about whether they created draft reports and whether they received substantive input from Plaintiffs attorneys. Both experts gave what now appears to have been inaccurate and misleading testimony in response to these questions. To give Plaintiffs witnesses a second crack at the same questions, with the expectation that this time the experts would give non-misleading answers, would hardly appear to be an appropriate means of redressing Plaintiffs counsel’s discovery violations. If these experts are to be given an opportunity to correct their deposition testimony, let it be before the jury who can assess the inconsistencies.

There are, as Defendants have argued, additional reasons to doubt the adequacy of re-deposing the witnesses as a cure to the prejudice caused by the discovery violation. Whereas the initial depositions of Drs. O’Brien and Stodden took place in December 2004 — four months after they provided Plaintiff with draft reports and received feedback — it is now four years since such exchanges took place. If Drs. O’Brien and Stodden had no recollection of receiving substantive input from Plaintiffs counsel in 2004, and making substantial changes to their own opinions, their memories can hardly be expected to have improved over the ensuing four years. Indeed, as became clear at the June 18, 2008 hearing, even Mr. Bazelon has no independent recollection of his August 1, 2004 conversation with Dr. O’Brien, but has instead attempted to piece together the input he provided “based on [his] comparison of the first paragraph of the July 29 draft report to the first paragraph of the final report.” (Bazelon Decl. ¶ 9.)

The Court finds that a sanction short of dismissal is available to cure the prejudice caused by Plaintiffs discovery violation in this case, but that Plaintiffs proposed sanction of having Defendants re-depose Plaintiffs witnesses is not an adequate alternative. Instead, the Court finds that an appropriate sanction capable of curing the prejudice Plaintiffs violation has caused would be to exclude Dr. O’Brien’s testimony that Bowers was depressed in November 1997 and Dr. Stodden’s testimony that Iowa and Temple provided services and resources to learning disabled students. It is upon the matter of the reliability of these specific opinions, under Dau-bert and Rule 702, that Defendants were denied the opportunity to effectively explore as a result of Plaintiffs discovery violation. Apart from Plaintiffs proposal that Defendants re-depose the witnesses, the inadequacy of which the Court explained above, no viable lesser sanction has been suggested.

f. Meritoriousness of Plaintiffs Claims

The Court must finally consider the meritoriousness of Plaintiffs claims. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868. “A claim, or defense, will be deemed meritorious when the allegations of the pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff or would constitute a complete defense.” Id. at 869-70 (also noting that this is a lower standard than that used at summary judgment). Defendants do not seriously contest the meritoriousness of Plaintiffs claims, and in light of the fact that those of Plaintiffs claims that remain in the case have survived summary judgment motions in the past, the claims may be considered sufficiently arguable under Poulis for present purposes.

g. Analysis

As the preceding discussion indicates, the balance of the Poulis factors reveals that dismissal is not an appropriate sanction to address Plaintiffs discovery misconduct. Against the prejudice caused by the violation, the history of discovery violations in this case, and the willfulness of the violations presently under consideration weigh Plaintiff Kathleen Bowers’ lack of personal responsibility for the violation, the availability of less onerous sanctions to cure Defendants’ prejudice, and the arguable meritoriousness of Plaintiffs claims. On balance, while Plaintiffs attorneys’ failure to comply with the terms of Judge Rosen’s Order has caused substantial inconvenience to Defendants and to the Court, the availability of alternative sanctions and the Court of Appeals’ mandate that “[djismissal must be a sanction of last, not first, resort,” Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869, require that Defendants’ motion for dismissal sanctions be denied.

However, in light of the prejudice caused by the discovery violation, the history of prior discovery abuse by Plaintiff, the inability of Defendants’ to cure that prejudice, and the strong indicia that the failure to disclose the expert materials was not the result of a mere oversight by counsel, the Court finds that a sanction targeting the prejudice the discovery violation has caused is necessary. See Pennypack, 559 F.2d at 904-05; see also Exxon Corp., 156 F.R.D. at 591. Plaintiffs failure to produce the draft reports in accordance with Judge Rosen’s Order, and the less-than-forthcoming testimony of Drs. O’Brien and Stodden concerning the existence of those drafts and the substantive input of counsel on their reports, unfairly hindered Defendants’ ability to explore the reliability of Dr. O’Brien’s opinion that Bowers suffered from depression in November 1997 and Dr. Stodden’s opinions concerning the availability of resources for learning disabled students at Iowa and Temple. The newly disclosed draft reports at minimum are strongly suggestive that both experts shored up their opinions after consulting with Plaintiffs counsel, a fact that Defendants would unquestionably have taken up in their depositions and Daubert motions had Plaintiff complied with her discovery obligations. See Occulto, 125 F.R.D. at 615; Reed, 165 F.R.D. at 430; Viterbo, 826 F.2d at 423 n. 2.

The prospect of reconvening the depositions of O’Brien and Stodden upon these new facets is untenable on the eve of trial of this eleven-year-old case, even at Plaintiffs expense; reconvening expert depositions where so much water is already under the bridge is not a suitable remedy of the pattern of non-disclosure of important discovery. Nor should the Court be forced by Plaintiffs last-minute disclosures to reopen discovery and eventually reargument upon the Daubert in limine motions, lest this case, in its pretrial preparation, be literally without end.

Pursuant to Rule 16(f), F.R. Civ. P., the Court will accordingly exclude Dr. O’Brien’s testimony regarding whether Bowers suffered from depression in November 1997 and Dr. Stodden’s opinions concerning the availability of resources for learning disabled students at Iowa and Temple as a sanction for Plaintiffs violation of Judge Rosen’s Discovery Order.

B. Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony

Aside from the sanctions motion discussed above, Defendants have moved to exclude the testimony of Drs. Roberts, Stodden, and Hishinuma on a variety of grounds. The Court addresses Defendants’ motions in turn after reviewing the standards governing the admission of expert witness testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

1. Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under Rule 702

The admissibility of expert witness testimony is governed by Rule 702, F.R. Evid., 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). Rule 702 provides as follows:

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 rehable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

F.R. Evid. 702. As the Supreme Court explained in Daubert, district court judges perform a “gatekeeping role,” 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786, by assessing whether expert testimony is both relevant and methodologically reliable in order to determine whether it is admissible under Rule 702. Id. at 590-91, 113 S.Ct. 2786; see also Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 146-47, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (holding that Daubert extends to testimony about “technical or other specialized knowledge”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Under the law of this Circuit, Daubert and Rule 702 call upon the Court to examine the admissibility of expert testimony in light of three factors: the qualifications of the expert, the reliability of his or her methodology and the application of that methodology, and whether the testimony fits the matters at issue in the ease. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 741-43 (3d Cir.1994). With regard to the qualifications prong, the Court of Appeals has explained that an expert’s qualifications should be assessed “liberally,” recognizing that “a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such.” Id. at 741 (also noting that “[w]e have eschewed imposing overly rigorous requirements of expertise and have been satisfied with more generalized qualifications”).

In addition to being qualified to testify in an expert capacity, an expert witness whose testimony is offered by a party must base her opinions on reliable methodology. The Court of Appeals explained in Paoli that

Daubert explains that the language of Rule 702 requiring the expert to testify to scientific knowledge means that the expert’s opinion must be based on the methods and procedures of science rather than on subjective belief or unsupported speculation; the expert must have good grounds for his or her belief. In sum, Daubert holds that an inquiry into the reliability of scientific evidence under Rule 702 requires a determination as to its scientific validity.

Id. at 742 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Recognizing that the “inquiry as to whether a particular scientific technique or method is reliable is a flexible one,” the Court of Appeals has identified a nonex-haustive list of eight factors that courts may address in determining whether an expert’s methodology is reliable. Id.; see also Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 152 (3d Cir.1999) (noting that the factors identified in Paoli serve as “useful guideposts, not dispositive hurdles that a party must overcome in order to have expert testimony admitted”); Kannankeril v. Terminix Intern., Inc., 128 F.3d 802, 806-07 (3d Cir.1997) (noting that the Paoli factors are “neither exhaustive nor applicable in every case”).

Finally, to be admissible under Rule 702, expert testimony must “fit,” or be relevant to, the facts at issue in the case. Paoli, 35 F.3d at 743. “Because Rule 702 demands that the expert testimony assist the trier of fact, such testimony will be admissible only if the research is sufficiently connected to the facts and issues presented in a given case.” Suter v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of America, 424 F.Supp.2d 781, 787 (D.N.J.2006) (citing Paoli 35 F.3d at 743). In other words, Rule 702’s relevance standard requires that there be “a valid scientific connection” between the expert’s testimony and the facts and issues in the case in order for the expert’s testimony to be admissible. Paoli, 35 F.3d at 743.

As the Court of Appeals has made clear, the standard for admissibility under Rule 702 is “not that high.” Id. at 745. Parties are not required to “prove their case twice — they do not have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their experts are correct, they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their opinions are reli