In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation (45 F. Supp. 3d 724, 2014)

ORDER REGARDING DAUBERT MOTIONS

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Gina Glazer and Trina Allison bring this action against defendant Whirlpool Corporation on behalf of a class of Ohio purchasers of Duet washing machines. Currently pending are a dozen Daubert motions to exclude the opinions and testimony of the parties’ experts. For the reasons and to the extent stated below, the Court rules on these motions as follows:

• Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David Griffin (docket no. 291) is DENIED;

• Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Marc Van Audenrode (docket no. 293) is DENIED;

• Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Todd B. Hilsee (docket no. 294) is GRANTED;

• Whirlpool's motion to exclude the testimony of Sarah Butler (docket no. 302) is DENIED;

• Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. R. Gary Wilson (docket no. 305) is DENIED;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to limit and exclude the testimony of Dr. Timothy Bresna-han (docket nos. 295, 296) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Harriet Burge (docket nos. 295, 297) is DENIED;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to limit and exclude the testimony of Dr. M. Laurentius Marais (docket nos. 295, 299) is GRANTED;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ned Ostojic (docket nos. 295, 300) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Ttamar Simonson (docket nos. 295, 301) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Priya Gopalakrishnan (docket nos. 295, 303) is GRANTED; and

• Plaintiffs’ motion to limit and exclude the testimony of Dr. Paul M. Taylor (docket nos. 295, 304) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Applicable Standards.

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that an expert’s opinion or testimony is admissible if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The rejection of expert testimony, however, is “the exception, rather than the rule.” In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 530 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 amendments, Fed.R.Evid. 702 (“Advisory Committee Notes ”)).

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court held that expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 only if it is both relevant and reliable, explaining that such a determination requires “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. at 592-93,113 S.Ct. 2786. The Daubert Court suggested a non-exclusive list of factors a court may consider when deciding whether proposed expert testimony is sufficiently reliable under Rule 702, including: (1) whether the expert’s theory or technique “can be (and has been) tested;” (2) “whether the technique or theory has been subjected to peer review and publication;” (3) “the known or potential rate of error” of a technique; (4) “the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation;” and (5) whether there has been “ ‘general acceptance’ ” of the theory or technique within the “relevant scientific community.” Id. at 593-94,113 S.Ct. 2786.

When assessing reliability, “the court does not ‘determine whether [the expert’s opinion] is correct, but rather [determines] whether it rests upon a reliable foundation.’ ” United States v. Stafford, 721 F.3d 380, 393-94 (6th Cir.2013) (quoting In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529-30). “The court’s focus is ‘solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.’” Stafford, 721 F.3d at 393 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786); see also Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665, 675 (6th Cir.2010) (“The important thing is not that experts reach the right conclusion, but that they reach it via a sound methodology.”).

The Daubert factors, however, “ ‘are not dispositive in every case.’ ” In re Scrap Metal, 527 F.3d at 529 (quoting Gross v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 272 F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir.2001)). Rather, trial courts have “considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable.” Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). Similarly, trial courts have “the same kind of latitude in deciding ... whether or when special briefing or other proceedings are needed to investigate reliability, as it enjoys when it decides whether that expert’s relevant testimony is reliable.” Id. (emphasis in original). Thus, a court is not “required to hold an actual hearing to comply with Daubert.” Greenwell v. Boatwright, 184 F.3d 492, 498 (6th Cir.1999).

II. Challenges to the Parties’ Engineering and Design Experts.

A. Summary of Proffered Expert Testimony.

1. Plaintiffs’ Expert.

Plaintiffs have retained R. Gary Wilson as their design expert, to provide testimony in support of their claims that Whirlpool knew or should have known that its Duet washers were designed with inherent defects that cause them to accumulate residue, mold and/or mildew, leading in some cases to accompanying odors.

Wilson is a mechanical engineer and former Director of Laundry Technology at Whirlpool. Wilson has experience in appliance design, including dishwashers and front-loading washers. Wilson opines that the design of Whirlpool’s Duets is flawed because the machines fail to self-clean and do not permit consumers to clean them easily. Wilson further opines that Whirlpool should have recognized the design of the machines would lead to mold growth, and there were alternative designs available to avoid the problems posed by Whirlpool’s design.

2. Whirlpool’s Experts.

In response to Plaintiffs’ engineering expert Wilson, Whirlpool designated Drs. Priya Gopalakrishnan, Harriet Burge, Paul Taylor, and. Ned Ostojic. A summary of each of their opinions follows.

Gopalakrishnan designed and performed a study that involved operation of a variety of top- and front-loading washing machines, including Duets, to clean soiled laundry for a period of several months. Gopalakrishnan conducted visual inspections and “sniff tests” of the washers, and also performed tear-down inspections and took swab samples of visible residue. Go-palakrishnan concludes that none of the washers she tested developed odors similar to those described by Plaintiffs and that proper care and maintenance prevents or reduces residue buildup.

Ostojic is an analytic chemist, chemical engineer, and odor scientist, with expertise in the field of odor measurement and control. Whirlpool retained Ostojic to review and comment on Wilson’s opinions and to review the odor sampling component of Gopalakrishnan’s washer study. Ostojic opines that the methodology underlying Wilson’s work is unreliable. Ostojic further opines, based on Gopalakrishnan’s odor sampling results, that Duet washers do not emit an unpleasant odor. Ostojic also buttresses Whirlpool expert Taylor’s analysis of Whirlpool’s customer-call data (discussed below) and opines that only a small percentage of customers have problems with odor.

Burge is an aerobiologist, who offers opinions regarding factors that affect the formation of biofilm, including mold and fungal growth, on man-made surfaces such as washing machines. Burge opines on the potential causes of odor in Plaintiffs’ machines, based upon her inspections of Whirlpool front-loading washers and her experience with fungal and bacterial odors. Burge also offers opinions on the methodology Gopalakrishnan employed in conducting her washer study.

Taylor is a mechanical engineer employed by Exponent, Inc., specializing in product analysis in consumer and industrial environments. Whirlpool retained Taylor to inspect Plaintiffs’ washing machines and to rebut the opinion of Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson that design defects in Duet washing machines cause mold and mildew growth and odors. (Taylor also rebuts the analyses of Plaintiffs’ experts Dr. David Griffin and Richard L. Oliver concerning databases of customer service calls, discussed below.) Taylor conducted inspections of Plaintiffs’ Duet washing machines, as well as other washers, and opines that Plaintiffs’ failure to follow the recommended maintenance steps caused their problems with biofilm and odor. Taylor also compared the Duet “Use and Care Guides” (“UCGs”) with similar guides for other manufacturers’ washing machines and concludes that: (1) no front-loading washing machine is self-cleaning; and (2) many top-loading washing machines also are not self-cleaning. Taylor also analyzed Whirlpool customer-call databases, and concludes that the rate of mold problems for Duet washers is significantly lower than reported by Plaintiffs’ experts. Further, to confirm or check his database analysis, Taylor reviewed repair history surveys for front-loading washing machines published in Consumer Reports, and opines that Whirlpool’s Duet repair rates during the class period were no higher than average.

B. Whirlpool’s Challenge to Wilson (docket no. 305).

As noted, R. Gary Wilson is Whirlpool’s former Director of Laundry Technology and designed dishwashers and front-loading washers for Whirlpool. Wilson opines the Duets suffered from “design flaws resulting from the neglect of the fundamental principle that a cleaning appliance must be able to clean itself or ... provide a means whereby the consumer can easily clean [it],” and Whirlpool “should have recognized” that design flaws in their Duets would lead to biofilm and mold growth. Wilson Report at 9-10 (docket No. 305-2); Wilson depo. at 9 (docket no. 305-3).

Whirlpool seeks to exclude Wilson’s testimony, arguing that: (a) he is unqualified, (b) his methodology does not rely on scientific testing or analysis, and (c) he ignores evidence that does not support his conclusions. As to qualifications, Whirlpool notes that Wilson’s experience at 'Whirlpool focused on dishwashers and, to the extent Wilson worked with washing machines, his experience was limited to top-loading models. Whirlpool points out that Wilson has “never studied biofilm in home appliances nor inspected any clothes washer for biofilm.” See Whirlpool Motion at 2 (docket no. 305).

As to methodology, Whirlpool argues Wilson’s approach is unreliable because: (a) his opinion that washers must be able to self-clean is an “unwritten design principle” unsupported by any “published literature, industry standard, or government regulation;” and (b) he failed to use objective scientific testing methods to support his opinion. Id. at 3. Whirlpool observes that Wilson examined only a small sample of Duets, all of which were used washers “cherry-picked” by Plaintiffs and most of which had been the subject of mold and/or odor complaints. Whirlpool also asserts Wilson failed to conduct any scientific testing of the machines, including sampling for bacteria or fungi or odor. He did not perform any study to determine a “threshold” amount of biofilm accumulation that will produce noticeable moldy odors and did not investigate potential alternative washer designs. Rather, Whirlpool asserts, Wilson simply relied on his own subjective visual examination of top-loading and front-loading machines and his observations of the amount of accumulated residue as support for his opinions of defect.

Whirlpool also notes Wilson did not investigate the owners’ use and care habits, even though he concedes that the amount of biofilm buildup “depends on the use and habits ... of the consumer.” Depo. at 114 (docket no. 305-3). Whirlpool argues that Wilson’s failure to consider alternative causes of biofilm buildup renders his methodology unscientific and unreliable. Finally, Whirlpool contends Wilson’s methodology is unreliable because he disregards evidence inconsistent with his conclusions, including: (1) the presence of clean plastic tubs and aluminum brackets in the washers of some of Plaintiffs’ front-loading machines; (2) lack of odor in some of Plaintiffs’ machines; and (3) significant accumulation of biofilm in some of the top-loaders he examined.

Plaintiffs respond that Wilson’s experience as a Whirlpool appliance design engineer and as Whirlpool’s own Director of Laundry Technology amply qualifies Wilson to offer opinions on the design of Whirlpool Duets and their potential for mold accumulation. Although Wilson never worked on front-loading washing machines for the consumer market during his 23-year tenure at Whirlpool, he did manage a research-and-development department responsible for designing a front-loading washer for the International Space Station.

Plaintiffs also observe that two other courts have already denied motions to exclude Wilson. See In re Front Loading Washing Mach. Class Action Litig., 2013 WL 3466821 (D.N.J. Jul. 10, 2013) (“LG ”) (involving LG washers) and Butler v. Sears, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157499 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 30, 2011) (involving Kenmore washers). In the first of these cases, Wilson opined that “every LG [front-loading washer], regardless of model, year, or platform, fails to self clean, which leads to biofilm accumulation that results in foul odors.” LG, 2013 WL 3466821 at *3. In the second case, Wilson opined that “the subject washers are defective in design because their basic functional characteristics, including their use of lower water volumes at cooler temperatures than standard machines, makes them unable to rid themselves of residue in the normal wash and rinse cycles and makes them incubators for the growth of bacteria and mold. Wilson concluded that the core design of all of the [Kenmore-brand,] Whirlpool-built front loading high efficiency washers is defective, without regard to any changes made to individual models to attempt to mitigate the problem.” Butler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157499, at *10-11.

In the context of class certification motions, both the LG and Butler courts declined to exclude Wilson’s testimony, finding that Wilson was qualified to opine as to the commonality of design flaw. See LG, 2013 WL 3466821 *4 (“Dr. Wilson’s opinion is based upon the extensive experience he has gained during his more than 20 years as an engineer with Whirlpool, his education, his training, his technical expertise, as well as his review and analysis of the [front-loading washers] in this and related litigation.”); Butler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157499 at *11-12 (“Wilson’s testimony is ... based upon his knowledge of washer technology and his understanding of the principles that generally keep machines functionally clean, as well as the extent to which the subject machines depart from those principles.... Wilson is clearly qualified[J”).

The foundation for Wilson’s expert testimony is the principle that a washer must be able to continually clean itself of residue build-up; it is described by Wilson as a fundamental design principle “which must be observed in order to have a commercially successful cleaning product.” Wilson Report at 13 (docket no. 305-5). Plaintiffs point to American Society of Sanitary Engineering (“ASSE”) standard # 1007, adopted by the American National Standards Institutes (“ANSI”) and identified by Wilson in his deposition. Those standards provide that “the washer ... shall provide a means of flushing all surfaces exposed to wash water ...” and “[t]he washing chamber and all components within it shall be designed to minimize the accumulation of soil.” ASSE 1007 at §§ 4.2, 4.3. Although Whirlpool argues Wilson never explicitly cited the ASSE standard in his report, Plaintiffs respond that the principle embodied by the standard “was so ingrained at Whirlpool” that all engineers would have known of the relevant design principle. Response at 4 n. 2 (docket no. 324).

With respect to Whirlpool’s assertion that Wilson fails to consider the owners’ use and care habits, Plaintiffs respond that Whirlpool misunderstands Wilson’s opinion. According to Plaintiffs, Wilson con-eludes that the inherent design flaw of the washers exists regardless of the owner’s use and care of the machine, and that use and care habits impact only the amount of mold that develops, not whether it develops. In other words, use and care habits “might exacerbate mold growth but [do] not cause it.” Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838, 848 (6th Cir.2013) (Glazer II). Plaintiffs also note Whirlpool’s internal documents support Wilson’s findings in this regard. See, e.g., docket no. 93-3 (email from Whirlpool engineer Anthony Hardaway stating “we are fooling ourselves if we think that we can eliminate mold and bacterial [sic] when our HA wash platforms are the ideal environment for molds and bacterial to flurish [sic],” and “Consumers’ habits and practices data ... show this can occur in as little as 24 hours or take months to start”).

Plaintiffs also respond that Wilson’s visual field inspection is an appropriate methodology for reviewing product design, and Whirlpool and its experts (including Taylor and Gopalakrishnan) also used this approach. In any event, Plaintiffs maintain, Wilson’s decades of experience are an adequate basis on which to base .his opinions, even without testing. See LG, 2013 WL 3466821, *4 (“The fact that Dr. Wilson has not undertaken his own testing does not disqualify him as an expert for the purposes for which he is proffered.”) Plaintiffs further contend Wilson’s failure to “quantify” unacceptable amounts of biofilm is consistent with the ASSE standard, which does not include or provide for quantitative measurements.

Finally, Plaintiffs observe that Wilson has examined numerous washers ' other than Whirlpool Duets, since Wilson also served as an expert in the prior LG litigation. Moreover, Wilson did not “ignore” evidence such as biofilm buildup in top-loading machines; he simply determined that such buildup was less than in the' Whirlpool Duets and it was located in areas that were easier for consumers to clean. As to Whirlpool’s assertion that Wilson should have examined its complaint rates for Duets, Wilson opines that, based on his experience at Whirlpool, he does not believe Whirlpool’s conduct in connection with the biofilm problem was consistent with its reported complaint rates.

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the Court rejects Whirlpool’s challenges and declines to exclude Wilson’s testimony. The Court agrees with the LG and Butler courts that Wilson’s background and experience qualify him to testify as to the commonality of design and inherent design defects in Whirlpool Duets. The Court further concurs with those courts that Wilson’s methodology is sufficiently reliable to support admission of his testimony here. Although LG and Butler considered Wilson’s testimony in the context of class certification motions, neither court limited its holding to that context, and this Court discerns no relevant difference here.

Regardless of whether Wilson explicitly cited AS SE # 1007 in his Report, the general design principle (the “need to self-clean”) that Wilson articulates is consistent with the ASSE standard. Further, Whirlpool’s own documents demonstrate that the principle of self-cleaning was incorporated into Whirlpool’s research and design work. Wilson’s foundational principle enjoys sufficient “general acceptance” within the “relevant scientific community,” as required by Daubert.

The Court also rejects Whirlpool’s arguments that Wilson’s methodology is unreliable based on his small and allegedly “unrepresentative” sample size. Particularly given Whirlpool’s admissions as to uniformity in design, Wilson’s tear-downs and visual inspections of machines are sufficiently reliable to support his opinions. Wilson first reviewed the design of the Duet washers and determined it was inherently flawed; he then examined a sample of washers and found their condition supported this opinion. While Whirlpool is correct that Wilson conducted no scientific testing in the strict sense, such as odor or residue sampling, and did not provide a quantitative measure of biofilm buildup that he would consider “too much,” Wilson disassembled and inspected 27 different front-loading washers. He reviewed Whirlpool engineering and design documents, as well as depositions of Duet owners and several experts. Most significantly, Wilson called on his own experience in washer design for Whirlpool to support his conclusion that the design of the Duet machines led to a propensity to develop mold.

As to Whirlpool’s assertions that Wilson: (1) failed to consider consumers’ use and care habits; (2) failed to consider alternate causes for mold problems; and (3) ignored evidence that contradicted his conclusions, Wilson provides reasonable explanations for having discounted the opinions of Whirlpool’s experts on these issues. Moreover, these challenges ultimately go to the weight, not the admissibility, of Wilson’s testimony. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (“[vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence”); In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litig., 739 F.3d 262, 281 (6th Cir.2014) (the expert’s consideration of some data inputs while omitting others goes to the accuracy of the conclusions, not the reliability of the testimony).

In sum, Whirlpool’s motion to exclude Wilson’s testimony is denied.

C. Plaintiffs’ Challenge to Gopalak-rishnan (docket nos. 295, 303).

Gopalakrishnan is an aerospace engineer employed by Exponent, Inc., with experience in evaluation of consumer appliances, including product testing. She has experience in evaluation of consumer appliances, but lists her expertise as “fluid mechanics, combustion, heat transfer, thermodynamics, and fire sciences.” Gopalakrishnan Report, Appx. A at 35 (docket no. 303-1). She has spent her entire career as a litigation expert.

Whirlpool retained Gopalakrishnan to test Wilson’s theory that “all” Duets have the propensity to accumulate biofilm and mold. Accordingly, Gopalakrishnan performed a study of a variety of top-and front-loading washing machines, including Duets. Specifically, Gopalakrishnan obtained a total of fifteen new and used washing machines, refurbished the used machines to “like-new” condition, and contracted temporary employees (whom she called “laundry professionals”) to operate the machines for several months. The employees operated the washers five days per week under prescribed conditions and performed periodic inspections of the machines. The inspections included photo documentation of the washers, “sniff tests,” and air sample collection to test for machine odors. After several months, Go-palakrishnan conducted “tear-downs” of the machines to inspect their interiors. Gopalakrishnan concludes that: (1) “all the washers in this study experienced an equivalent of six to eight months of average household use with no noticeable or visible mold growth or residue buildup ...(2) “proper use and maintenance significantly reduces or prevents the buildup of laundry residues;” (3) “none of the test washers has an odor with moldy, mildew, sewage, sulfur, rotten or foul characteristics described by the plaintiffs;” and (4) “[t]he test results confirm that the top-loading test washers are not ‘self-cleaning’[.]” Report at 28-29 (docket no. 303-1).

Plaintiffs move to exclude all of Gopalak-rishnan’s testimony, arguing: (1) she is an aerospace engineer and is thus unqualified in the fields of biology and mycology; (2) her study failed to comply with the scientific method; (3) she inaccurately reported results and altered data; and (4) her opinions are unhelpful, since she attempted to simulate six to eight months of usage by running an unusually high number of loads in a three-month period.

Plaintiffs point out that Gopalakrishnan has a limited understanding of biofilm, never tested biofilm prior to this litigation, and testified she does not know what mycology is. Plaintiffs also challenge Gopa-lakrishnan’s testing protocol as novel, untested, and riddled with inconsistencies. As an example of Gopalakrishnan’s purportedly “sloppy” methodology, plaintiffs point to an incident where a skunk infiltrated a warehouse area used for storage of her odor-sampling bags. Apparently, neither Gopalakrishnan nor her staff noticed the intrusion until the outside odor sampling facility detected the skunk odor.

Further, Plaintiffs argue Gopalakrish-nan altered results and failed to record results unfavorable to Whirlpool. Plaintiffs point to Gopalakrishnan’s testimony that she “occasionally” smelled stagnant or unpleasant odors in the washing machines but did not take samples or record those odors. In fact, in November and December 2012, Gopalakrishnan conducted odor sampling with towels, and failed to include those sampling results in any of her subsequent written reports. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that running a large number of loads over a three-month period is not a reliable means of simulating six to eight months of average household use, since running more loads of laundry over a shorter period actually reduces the buildup of biological growth.

Whirlpool responds that Gopalakrish-nan, although she is not a biologist, has experience in testing appliances, including washing machines and dryers. Whirlpool describes Gopalakrishnan’s background in design of experiments and isolating variables to test hypotheses. Whirlpool also maintains Gopalakrishnan’s study followed the scientific method and produced reliable data regarding the causes of odor problems in the washers. According to Whirlpool, Gopalakrishnan designed her study to replicate consumers’ use of washing machines in the real world, which may be variable.

Whirlpool asserts Gopalakrishnan developed machine use and cleaning protocols based on the named Plaintiffs’ reported use of their own machines, and that each machine completed at least 300 wash cycles over a period of at least four months. While Gopalakrishnan cleaned and maintained some washers according to an established schedule, Whirlpool asserts she failed to clean others deliberately, in order to replicate consumer misuse. Whirlpool further argues that research on “normal consumer-soiled laundry” was unnecessary, since Gopalakrishnan obtained actual consumer laundry from Exponent employees, and from a senior living facility. Whirlpool argues that Gopalakrishnan’s running laundry loads at an accelerated rate does not impact the reliability of her study, because: (1) Gopalakrishnan operated the washers within known consumer usage patterns; (2) there is no evidence that operating washers on an accelerated schedule impacts residue buildup; and (3) Gopalakrishnan operated both the maintained and non-maintained machines on the same accelerated schedule.

Whirlpool also asserts Gopalakrishnan adhered to a standard protocol in collecting air samples and swab samples from the washing machines. According to Whirlpool, the “minor” alterations in protocol identified by Plaintiffs resulted from Gopa-lakrishnan’s attempts to improve the accuracy of the study. Whirlpool argues Plaintiffs exaggerate the skunk incident, which occurred in a separate building from the washer testing lab, and impacted only the storage location for air-sampling bags. Whirlpool claims the skunk odor on the sampling bags was “extremely faint;” however, once the odor laboratory detected the skunk odor in a few samples, Gopalakrish-nan appropriately excluded all samples from that date from her study.

Although Gopalakrishnan opined that none of the study machines “developed odors with the biofilm-related characteristics described,” Report at 18 (docket no. 317-1), Whirlpool admits that Gopalakrish-nan occasionally detected “temporary” machine odors, although she believed some were “detergent” or “fabric softener” odors. See Opposition at 11 (docket no. 317). Gopalakrishnan recorded these machine odors in her notes only if she detected them as part of a scheduled “sniff test.”

The Court finds several of Plaintiffs’ arguments well taken, and accordingly, grants Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Gopa-lakrishnan’s testimony. First, as Whirlpool acknowledges, Gopalakrishnan’s education and experience are in the areas of aerospace engineering and thermal science. Gopalakrishnan in fact has no experience in the field of mycology, has never studied mold or odor (other than in this litigation), and has no particular knowledge of biology. Gopalakrishnan’s general experience in experimental design is insufficiently specific to permit Gopalakrishnan to offer the conclusions at issue here— specifically, the opinions that Whirlpool’s washers “do not build up excessive residue within a matter of weeks or months[,]” do not “develop[ ] odors with the bio-film odor characteristics described by the named plaintiffs[,]” and do not develop “malodors associated with mold or mildew[.]” (Docket no. 303-1, at 28-29). See, e.g., Buck v. Ford Motor Co., 810 F.Supp.2d 815, 842 (N.D.Ohio 2011) (“Expertise in the technology of fruit is not sufficient when analyzing the science of apples, and courts have excluded the testimony of engineers because their expertise was not particular to the science involved in the case.”).

The Court is further troubled by Gopalakrishnan’s admittedly “novel” methodology, as well as the irregularities in protocol, which render Gopalakrishnan’s study difficult—if not impossible—to duplicate. As Gopalakrishnan admits, she developed the protocol for this study without reviewing any published literature (including any washer testing protocols), and in fact never consulted anyone at Whirlpool as to whether it had a protocol for testing washers (which it does).

Further, although Gopalakrishnan may have had reasons for making certain protocol shifts (such as the frequency of heavy duty cycles, frequency of cleaning cycles, and the number of loads run per day) during the course of the study, these protocol changes nonetheless render any replication of her study virtually impossible. See Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, L.L.C., 472 F.3d 398, 408 (6th Cir.2006) (excluding expert’s opinions because expert created methodology solely for purposes of litigation, and there was “no evidence that his methodology had ever been tested, subjected to peer review, possessed a known or potential rate of error, or enjoyed general acceptance.”). Gopalak-rishnan’s delegation of a significant number of discretionary tasks (including decisions as to how to allocate laundry and how many loads to run) to temporary employees, with no scientific training, magnifies these flaws.

While the alleged skunk contamination in Gopalakrishnan’s laboratory affected only a limited number of samples (all of which Gopalakrishnan excluded from her study), the fact of this occurrence nonetheless highlights larger issues bearing on the implementation of controls over Gopalak-rishnan’s study. In the context of testing aimed at detecting odor, the fact that a skunk was able to enter one of Gopalak-rishnan’s storage areas and contaminate sample bags, and that the contamination was not detected either by Gopalakrishnan or her staff, undermines the reliability of Gopalakrishnan’s methods to an extent that casts doubt on her study as a whole.

Finally, Gopalakrishnan’s omissions of material results and data from her expert report—including the detection of “occasional” unpleasant odors in the washers— raise significant concerns. While Gopalak-rishnan argues these odors were detected outside of scheduled sampling times, she in fact made no notes of these odors at all, and apparently did not consider them in reaching the conclusions in her report. Even more troubling is Gopalakrishnan’s failure to include the results of the odor sampling conducted with towels in November and December 2012 (the results of which, arguably, were unfavorable to Whirlpool) in any of her subsequent written reports.

Perhaps certain of these defects, if present in isolation, might have been appropriately addressed through cross-examination of Gopalakrishnan rather than wholesale exclusion of her testimony. Combined, however, the flaws in her analysis undermine the foundation of her conclusions and render them unreliable. See J.T. Colby & Co., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2013 WL 1903883 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2013) (“Some of these errors, on their own, may not have been fundamental enough to justify the exclusion of [the expert’s] reports and survey results. Taken together with the serious flaws described above, however, they confirm the conclusion that the plaintiffs’ expert reports and surveys are inadmissible[.]”).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Gopalakrishnan’s testimony is granted.

D. Plaintiffs’ Challenge to Ostojic (docket nos. 295, 300).

Ostojic is an analytic chemist and chemical engineer. He is Director of Engineering at Odor Science & Engineering, Inc. (“OS & E”), a company that provides consulting services in odor assessment and control, including the “quantification of odor using sensory and instrumental techniques.” Report at ¶ 3 & Exh. A (docket no. 300-1). Whirlpool retained Ostojic to respond to Wilson’s opinions and to review the odor sampling component of Gopalak-rishnan’s washer study.

Broadly speaking, Ostojic’s opinions fall into three' categories: (1) explaining human perception of odor, and why the presence of mold in a washer does not necessarily mean people will smell bad odors; (2) discussing and agreeing with the results of a study by Whirlpool expert Paul Taylor regarding complaints made by Duet owners; and (3) quantifying the air samples collected by Gopalakrishnan during her washer study.

The thrust of Ostojic’s first opinion is that Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson “fail[ed] to utilize any reliable, scientific methods to support his assertion that ... biofilms in the Subject Washers cause noticeable odors[.]” (Docket no. 318-1, ¶ 8). Ostojic begins by providing background information regarding the causes of odor in machines and how factors such as machine use and maintenance may affect growth of odor-causing microbes. Ostojic opines that the “potential for development of biof-ilm related odor could readily vary by a factor of as much as one hundred times or more from one machine to another,” Report, ¶ 24 (docket no. 300-1) and there is also a significant “variability of human perception of odor.” Id. at ¶ 27.

Ostojic further opines that Wilson’s report’s “central weakness” is its failure to recognize that mere evidence of biofilm inside washers “provides no evidence of the presence of odor.” Id. at ¶ 53. According to Ostojic, Wilson provides no evidence to support his conclusion that “[o]nce the bacteria and mold begin to grow[,] a pronounced foul odor occurs that infiltrates the articles being washed and often the area surrounding the machine.” Id. at ¶ 42. Ostojic also opines: “[Tjhere is a complete absence of scientific evidence provided in Wilson’s report that links biof-ilms with odor and at the same time, odor appears to be the main avenue for a user to become aware of those biofilms.” Depo. at 17 (docket no. 300-4) Instead, Ostojic concludes, a majority of the human population will perceive an odor only if the concentration rises “substantially above the odor threshold level for the most sensitive individuals.” Report at ¶ 53 (docket no. 300-1).

The essence of Ostojic’s first opinion is that some level of mold is present in all washing machines, but that most people will not detect it. Thus, Ostojic opines, Wilson is wrong in concluding that buildup of biofilm automatically results in washer odor. This opinion is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims here; Plaintiffs do not seriously challenge it, and it is admissible.

In his second opinion, Ostojic supports his position by pointing to the results of Taylor’s study. Taylor concluded a very small percentage of Duet owners ever complained about mold or odor. Ostojic states that the variability he describes in “human perception of odor” is “consistent with the established low incidence of reported mold related odors” as reported in Taylor’s examination of the Whirlpool call center data. Id. at ¶27. Plaintiffs move to exclude Ostojic’s testimony pertaining to call center data because: (a) Ostojic is not qualified to examine call center data, or to opine on the percentage of customers with odor complaints; and (b) even if Osto-jic were qualified to opine on these issues, he ignores internal Whirlpool documents that contradict its reported complaint rate. Whirlpool responds that Ostojic does not offer opinions regarding the rate of odor complaints to Whirlpool; rather, he reviews and summarizes the analyses of Hardaway and Taylor to “confirm” his own work. Whirlpool also argues Ostojic did not “ignore” Whirlpool’s internal documents referencing an odor complaint rate of 35 percent; rather, he found the analy-ses conducted by Hardaway and Taylor to be more credible.

As to Ostojic’s second opinion, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in part, and denies it in part. Ostojic seeks to opine both that (1) Taylor’s statistical analysis is valid and correct; and (2) that it supports his own opinion. Ostojic may say the latter but, as a non-statistician, he is unqualified to say the former. Ostojic admits he is not an expert in complaints or customer satisfaction, see depo. at 27-28 (docket no. 300-4), and his reliance on Taylor’s work “does not enlarge ... [his] fundamental area of expertise.” In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 WL 7699456 at *26 (N.D.Ohio Jun. 4, 2010). “A scientist, however well credentialed he may be, is not permitted to be the mouthpiece of a scientist in a different specialty.” Dura Auto. Sys. of Ind., Inc. v. CTS Corp., 285 F.3d 609, 614 (7th Cir.2002). Still, while Ostojic may not parrot or vouch for Taylor’s analysis and opinions, he is permitted to state that Taylor’s conclusions dovetail with and support his own.

Ostojic’s third opinion is based on a “sniff-test” study of the air-samples collected by Gopalakrishnan. He used two “professional sniffers” to measure 160 different air samples for four characteristics:

• Odor character, which describes odor using general descriptors (e.g., “sweet” or “acrid”) or references to specific odor sources (e.g., “sludge” or “compost”);

• Odor concentration, which is the number of dilutions with odor-free air (measured in dilutions to threshold (“D/T”)) needed to make an odor undetectable to a given fraction (typically 50%) of a panel of odor observers;

• Odor intensity, which is the perception of intensities of different odors; and

• Hedonic tone, which is the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor on a scale typically ranging from - 8 (unpleasant) to +8 (most pleasant).

His ultimate conclusions were that: (1) the great majority of air samples revealed only pleasant odors of laundry detergent and fabric softener; and (2) the few air samples that did reveal unpleasant odors had such low concentrations that the average person would not be able to smell them.

Plaintiffs seek to exclude Ostojic’s odor study, since: (a) Ostojic’s washer panelists were not “blind” and had a financial interest in the outcome of the study; (b) more than 85% of Ostojic’s data came from only two odor panelists, and his study methods were unreliable; and (c) the skunk infiltration renders the study unreliable. Plaintiffs challenge the reliability of Ostojic’s study because Martha O’Brien (Ostojic’s business partner) and Gary Grumley (an OS & E employee) served as the only two odor panelists for three of the four odor measurement parameters.

■ Whirlpool asserts Ostojic’s odor panel was reliable and complied with American Society for Testing Materials (“ASTM”) guidelines. Whirlpool further denies that Qstojic’s staff knew the purpose of the sniff-test or the desired results. Finally, Whirlpool contends that neither Ostojic’s failure to personally visit Exponent’s facility nor the isolated incident of skunk contamination warrant exclusion of the odor study.

The Court concludes Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Ostojic’s sniff-test results must be granted. Although the Court agrees with Whirlpool that the single incident of skunk contamination (from which Ostojic excluded sample results) is insufficient to invalidate the study, Ostojic’s use of only two (arguably biased) panelists poses a more significant problem.

Whirlpool argues Ostojic’s testers were appropriately “blind” because they did not know whether an air sample came from a washer where no maintenance was performed or one where maintenance was performed, nor whether it was from a front- or top-loader. But it is fairly obvious Whirlpool would want any testers to identify no bad odors from any machine, and at least one of the testers in Ostojic’s study knew Whirlpool was funding the study. Moreover, industry rules regarding how to conduct sniff tests state' that odor panelists should be unbiased, come from the community at large, reflect a cross section of age and gender, and number at least five and preferably eight or more. See ASTM Guidelines (docket nos. 342-1, 342-2). Ostojic’s study did not meet any of these requirements.

In any event, Ostojic’s sniff-test results address samples taken as part of Gopalak-rishnan’s study, which the Court has excluded. In this context, Ostojic’s analysis of Gopalakrishnan’s samples could not be helpful to the jury. Because the methodology underlying Ostojic’s odor study is fundamentally flawed, it must be excluded.

For the reasons and to the extent described, Plaintiffs motion to exclude the testimony of Ostojic is granted in part and denied in part.

E. Plaintiffs’ Challenge to Burge (docket nos. 295, 297).

Plaintiffs will introduce testimony from expert Chin Yang, who is a mycologist—a biology expert specializing in mold. Whirlpool did not file a Daubert motion addressing Yang. In response to Yang, Whirlpool will offer testimony from Harriet Burge. Burge is an aerobiologist employed by EMLab P & K; she studies the science of mold and fungal particles on surfaces and in the air, as well as their sources and their effects on health.

Plaintiffs do not object to a number of Burge’s opinions regarding mold, such as how long it takes mold to form and whether the conditions in a washer are ripe for mold formation. Plaintiffs do however, move to exclude several specific opinions as to how mold and fungi accumulate in a machine, given its design. As to these opinions, Plaintiffs argue that Burge is not qualified to render any opinions as to design defects because she: (1) is not an engineer, (2) testified she has no opinions regarding washer design per se; and (3) testified she does not know how washing machines work. Plaintiffs further contend Burge’s opinions on alternative causes of Plaintiffs’ odor complaints are “speculation,” since Burge did not do testing or investigation that would support these opinions.

The following three examples illustrate the opinions that Plaintiffs challenge:

[N]either fungi nor bacteria are likely to grow in sufficiently large quantities to produce a noticeable, offensive mold or musty odor in the vast majority of washing machines, providing the consumer periodically cleans the soap dispenser and leaves the door or lid ajar so that the bellow, plastic tub, and steel drum can more quickly and thoroughly dry between uses of the machine.... My opinion is based on the nature of fungi and bacteria (described above) and their requirements for the presence of water in order to grow, the fact that VOCs [Volatile Organic Compounds] dissipate very rapidly into the atmosphere ..., and the fact that adequate ventilation inhibits the type of microbial growth that would produce VOCs in the first instance.

December 2009 Report, ¶27 (docket no. 297-2).

In my opinion, it is also extremely unlikely that fungus or bacteria in the plaintiffs’ washing machines has “contaminated” the clothing and other items washed in many, much less all, of the machines at issue in this litigation such that the laundry would acquire fungal or bacterial odors constituting a “pronounced foul odor.” Virtually all of the small quantities of VOCs produced by the fungi and bacteria, especially where the laundry actually touches the machine, are highly likely to be washed away with warm or hot water and laundry detergent during a normal wash cycle and are even more likely to be washed away during a cleaning cycle. For these reasons, it is my opinion that Dr. Wilson has erred in concluding that the Whirlpool washers’ alleged failure to self-clean leads to “a pronounced foul odor” that “infiltrates the articles being washed.”

Id., ¶ 30.

My opinion is that the strong sulfur odor that emanates from [plaintiff Glazer’s] laundry room during use of the Duet Sport washer is generated by the flushing of the wash solution through the washer’s plastic drain hose, which empties into a wash basin next to the washing machine. The flushing of water through the plastic drain hose and into the open wash basin, rather than into a closed drain pipe in the wall, would flush out the VOCs that are produced by the anaerobic bacteria that reside in her drain hose.

Id. ¶ 33.

Whirlpool responds, first, that Burge’s opinions do not pertain to washer design or engineering, but are based on Burge’s expertise in mold, including the tendency of mold to accumulate on a given surface. Additionally, Whirlpool asserts, Burge’s opinion that Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson failed to follow the scientific method, because he used a statistically unreliable sample, falls within Burge’s expertise as a research scientist.

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ arguments and denies Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Burge. While Plaintiffs assert Burge offers opinions on the design of Whirlpool's front-loading washers, Burge actually does no such thing. As Plaintiffs concede, Burge is an expert in the accumulation of mold on surfaces in given conditions, including surfaces in washers. It is these issues, not design defects, at which Burge’s opinions are directed. Further, insofar as Burge’s opinions are directed at rebuttal of opinions offered by Plaintiffs’ experts, those opinions also appear solidly grounded in her biological background. To the extent that Burge’s trial testimony may stray outside this background and into areas of defective design, Plaintiffs may assert objections at the appropriate juncture.

With respect to Burge’s opinions as to alternative causes for Plaintiffs’ washer odors, Burge indicates she was present for several washer inspections and reviewed photographs of several others. Burge also reviewed literature and studies pertaining to mold and fungi in washing machines. Burge’s opinions, including her opinion regarding an alternative cause for the odor associated with Ms. Glazer’s machine, appear to be reasonably based on her experience, her review of the literature, and her personal observations during the washer inspections for which she was present. Plaintiffs’ criticisms of Burge, including that she did not dismantle the Glazer washing machine nor test it for biological activity, go to the weight of Burge’s testimony, not its admissibility.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude or limit Burge’s testimony is denied.

F. Plaintiffs’ Challenge to Taylor (docket nos. 295, 304).

Taylor is a mechanical engineer employed by Exponent, Inc. Whirlpool retained Taylor to inspect Plaintiffs’ washing machines and to rebut the opinion of Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson that design defects in Duet washing machines cause mold and mildew growth and odors. Taylor also rebuts the analyses of Plaintiffs’ experts Griffin and Oliver concerning databases of customer-service calls. Taylor conducted in-home and offsite inspections of Plaintiffs’ Duet washers, as well as inspections of other used washing machines. Taylor also compared Plaintiffs’ actual use and care practices with the requirements set out in the UCGs for Duet washing machines.

Plaintiffs move to exclude most, if not all, of Taylor’s testimony, arguing that virtually none of Taylor’s testimony involves mechanical engineering. Plaintiffs contend Whirlpool proffers Taylor as a “catchall” rebuttal expert, and that his testimony extends to biology, odor measurement, database analysis, statistics, and consumer behavior—areas in which he has no expertise, and is unqualified to testify.

The Court examines each of Taylor’s opinions separately, and concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Taylor’s testimony should be granted in part and denied in part. The Court has reviewed each of Taylor’s five separate reports in this action, and has identified, in each report, the inadmissible portions of Taylor’s proposed testimony. Annotated copies of those reports, with highlighting denoting the opinions to be excluded, are attached as Exhibit A to this Order.

Inspection of Plaintiffs’ Washers and Homes

Taylor visited the homes of plaintiffs Allison and Glazer to inspect their washers and laundry rooms, and determine if their odor issues might be caused by something other than their washers. Taylor made a number of observations as to Plaintiffs’ washers, including: (1) whether there was any odor at the time; and (2) whether there were any visible signs of residue.

Taylor also observed that: (1) Glazer did not have high-efficiency (“HE”) detergent in her laundry room, even though she stated that she followed the Duet UCG and used HE detergent; (2) Allison had only a 3-year old package of Affresh washer cleaner, even though she said she used Affresh regularly; and (3) Allison’s washer and house were messy and dirty. Whirlpool offers Taylor’s observations regarding Plaintiffs’ laundry rooms to show Allison and Glazer did not use their washers as directed. 'Whirlpool offers Taylor’s observations regarding Plaintiff Allison’s home to challenge Allison’s testimony that she always kept her washer very clean.

Plaintiffs argue that Taylor is not an odor scientist or mycologist, and thus should not be permitted to opine as to mold or residue in Plaintiffs’ washers. Further, Plaintiffs assert Taylor should not be allowed to attack the credibility of Glazer or Allison, and should not be allowed to contradict them as to their use of HE detergent, or Affresh.

Taylor’s lack of expertise in mold or odor does not disqualify him from relating simple percipient and relevant observations, for what they are worth. See Robertson v. Red Rock Canyon School, LLC, 2008 WL 2989245 at *2 (D.Utah, July 31, 2008) (noting that expert witnesses can also be percipient witnesses); U.S. v. Sierra Pacific Inds., 2011 WL 2119078 (E.D.Cal. May 26, 2011) (same). For the same reasons, although Taylor may not opine as to Plaintiffs’ credibility, he may relay his observations as to the contents of Plaintiffs’ laundry rooms; the jury can draw whatever inference it wants to. Thus, while Taylor may testify as to what he observed in Plaintiffs’ laundry rooms— Glazer’s lack of HE detergent, or Allison’s old packet of Affresh—he may not draw conclusions as to what those findings mean about Plaintiffs’ testimony.

To the extent, however, that Taylor seeks to opine regarding the cleanliness of Plaintiffs’ homes and/or their cleaning habits in general, this evidence is too tenuously connected to the relevant issues and is not admissible.

Use of Words Mold, Mildew and Bacteria

Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson opines that Whirlpool purposely avoided using the words mold, mildew, and bacteria when communicating with customers. Taylor observes that Whirlpool did use these terms in its UCGs, in a letter to Consumer Reports, and in emails to consumers. Plaintiffs argue that Taylor has no expertise with UCGs or communications, and should not be permitted to opine that Whirlpool’s use of these terms was “adequate” to inform consumers of the potential biofilm problem. Whirlpool responds that Taylor reviewed the UCGs as an engineer to determine how manufacturers expected consumers to operate their machines.

While Plaintiffs are correct as to Taylor’s lack of expertise regarding the “adequacy” of the communication, Taylor does not appear to offer that opinion. While Taylor may observe that Whirlpool uses the words “mold,” “mildew” and “bacteria” in the UCGs, he will not be permitted to offer opinions as to the adequacy of any disclosure to consumers.

User Guide Observations

Plaintiffs’ expert Wilson asserts it is a “fundamental principle” that washers should clean themselves or allow consumers to clean them easily, and the Duets are defective because they do not do so. In response, Taylor reviewed UCGs for not only the Duets but also for numerous other front-load washers from competitors. He concludes that all front-loader manufacturers provide similar instructions for manual cleaning and related use and care topics. Taylor also reviewed UCGs for top-loading machines and concludes many top-loaders do not self-clean and the UCGs call for maintenance.

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ assertion that Taylor is unqualified to review and analyze UCGs. As a mechanical engineer with experience in the performance of consumer products, Taylor’s qualifications are broad enough to encompass the intended use and operation of washing machines based on his review of UCGs. See Palatka v. Savage Arms, Inc., 535 Fed.Appx. 448, 455 (6th Cir.2013) (expert’s “skill, education, and training in mechanical engineering render him competent to offer opinions on a variety of mechanical topics!.]”). Taylor’s opinion is, in any event, much narrower than Plaintiffs assert. Essentially, Taylor points out that UCGs for all sorts of washers are virtually uniform in directing consumers to maintain their machines—that is, they state that washers are not self-cleaning. This narrow opinion is an appropriate rebuttal to Wilson; Taylor is qualified to offer it; and it is admissible.

Statistical Analysis of Complaint Rates

As discussed further below, Whirlpool expert Hardaway conducted an analysis of Whirlpool’s databases regarding: (1) complaints made to Whirlpool about mold or smell; and (2) warranty service calls for mold or smell. Plaintiffs’ expert Griffin then undertook a similar analysis but looked at more data. In response, Taylor did the same thing but engaged in an even more detailed examination. Taylor performed his own analyses of customer service-call databases and concluded the rate of mold problems on Duet washers is significantly lower than reported by Plaintiffs’ experts. Taylor also analyzed repair history surveys for front-loading washing machines published in Consumer Reports, as “a further check or cross-reference on [his own] data analyses.” December 2009 Report, ¶¶ 38-39 (docket no. 314-2).

Plaintiffs argue that Taylor’s background as a mechanical engineer—with no expertise in statistics or database analysis—does not qualify him to undertake a statistical examination of Whirlpool’s databases. Even if Taylor were qualified to testify on these subjects, Plaintiffs argue that his testimony is speculative and unhelpful, since the jury can read and weigh Consumer Reports data without Taylor’s assistance.

Whirlpool responds that Taylor has experience analyzing “warranty and accident databases,” and that engineers, including Whirlpool engineers, regularly review service and call databases to determine the scope of a potential problem. Whirlpool further argues that Taylor’s review of Consumer Reports repair data was appropriate, because Taylor was analyzing “real world evidence” in response to Wilson’s opinion that all clothes washers should self-clean.

The Court agrees with Whirlpool that Taylor, as a mechanical engineer, has sufficient knowledge of database review and statistics, and sufficient experience with consumer databases, to offer opinions regarding complaint rates in Whirlpool databases. Further, Whirlpool’s databases are the type of data an engineer normally would review and rely upon in formulating an opinion as to design issues and complaint rates. See Ohio Envtl. Dev. Ltd. P’ship v. Envirotest Sys. Corp., 478 F.Supp.2d 963, 974 (N.D.Ohio 2007) (an “expert is free to give his opinion relying upon the types of data an expert would normally use in forming an opinion in his area of expertise”) (quoting Mannino v. International Mfg. Co., 650 F.2d 846, 851 (6th Cir.1981)).

As to Taylor’s reliance on Consumer Reports, however, the Court reaches a different conclusion. Taylor refers to the magazine surveys to support his assertion that most consumers did not have mold problems, because the rate for serious repairs or problems for Whirlpool washers was low. Taylor knows nothing, however, about how Consumer Reports gathered its data or what it meant by its definition of a “serious repair or problem.” See, e.g., In re Aredia & Zometa Prods. Liab. Litig., 483 Fed.Appx. 182, 189 (6th Cir.2012) (unpublished) (affirming Daubert exclusion where proffered expert “had no independent expertise from any other source other than the six articles Plaintiff’s counsel gave him”). Moreover, Whirlpool has pointed to no evidence that mechanical engineers typically rely on Consumer Reports in determining whether a machine has a defect, and the Court rejects that argument. Taylor relies on data sources that offer more precise support for his opinions and that are of the type normally relied upon by engineers. His makeweight reliance on Consumer Reports articles to support his opinions is unnecessary and unscientific.

Opinions on Studies by Ostojic, Burge and Gopalakrishnan

Plaintiffs seek to exclude portions of Taylor’s opinions that merely evaluate the work of other experts, including Ostojic, Burge and Gopalakrishnan. Insofar as the Court has excluded the testimony of Gopa-lakrishnan, and has excluded the results of Ostojic’s sniff-tests, Taylor’s opinions as to the studies conducted by those experts are moot. With respect to Burge, as well, Taylor will not be permitted to offer testimony merely vouching for her work. See, e.g., Bouygues Telecom, 472 F.Supp.2d at 729 (the court “performing its gatekeeping function necessarily must ensure that [the expert] is not merely parroting the opinions of others”).

Taylor’s Clean Washer Studies

Taylor conducted several studies examining the Clean Washer Cycle (“CWC”) that is available on the more-recent Whirlpool Duet models. To test the efficacy of the CWC, Taylor: (1) conducted a “fingerpaint study,” which tested the CWC’s ability to remove fingerpaint from the interior of the washer; (2) drilled holes in the machine to see whether the water reached various surfaces; and (3) performed several camera studies, which took video and still pictures of the interior of the washer during the CWC. Plaintiffs contend that all of Taylor’s tests, while they may show the flow of water during the CWC, prove nothing about the CWC’s ability to remove residue or biofilm.

Plaintiffs do not seriously argue that Taylor, as a mechanical engineer, is unqualified to conduct the Clean Washer Studies, and the Court concludes he is qualified to do so. The Court also finds Taylor’s methodology is reasonable; the appropriate means for Plaintiffs to challenge any perceived deficiencies is cross-examination. While “[a]n expert’s opinion, where based on assumed facts, must find some support for those assumptions in the record .. .• [m]ere ‘weaknesses in the factual basis of an expert witness’s opinion .