Full opinion text
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION . AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESSES ON THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION WILSON, District Judge. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Judith Sanderson filed this action in state court against defendant International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. (“IFF”) for personal injuries stemming from her exposure to various perfumes and colognes (“fragrance products”), seven of which she identified in her complaint: Boss, Drakkar Noir, Stetson, Joop! Homme, Calvin Klein’s Obsession, Davidoffs Cool Water, and Freesia (“the seven fragrances”). IFF removed to this Court, and plaintiff added several other defendants whom she had previously sued as Does, all of whom are alleged to be manufacturers or distributors of one or more of the seven fragrances. IFF filed three separate motions: a motion for summary judgment on the issue of the statute of limitations; a motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation; and a motion for an order excluding plaintiff’s expert witnesses on the issue of causation. The other defendants have filed joinders, sometimes with additional argument of their own. The Court held a hearing on these motions on July 1, 1996. In a separate Order, the Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. In this Order, the Court addresses defendants’ other two motions, and for the reasons expressed herein, grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation. DISCUSSION I. CAUSATION Plaintiffs complaint pleads two causes of action: negligence and strict liability. Under California law, which supplies the rule of decision in this diversity action, causation is an essential element of both claims. “The general rule is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the injuries she suffered were caused by the conduct of the defendant.” Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 40 Cal.3d 672, 221 Cal.Rptr. 447, 453-54, 710 P.2d 247, 253 (1985); Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal. Rptr. 132, 136, 607 P.2d 924, 928 (1980). “The law is well-settled that in a personal injury action causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony. Mere possibility alone is insufficient to establish a prima facie case____ A possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action. This is the outer limit of inference upon which an issue may be submitted to the jury.” Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 163 Cal.App.3d 396, 209 Cal.Rptr. 456, 460 (2 Dist.1985) (citations omitted); Cottle v. Superior Court (Oxnard Shores Co.), 3 Cal.App. 4th 1367, 5 Cal. Rptr.2d 882, 892 (2 Dist.1992). It should be emphasized that expert testimony is required to establish causation, since this case involves scientific issues that are “beyond the experience of laymen.” Id. 209 CaLRptr. at 461 (“in the absence of factual circumstances of probability understandable to a jury there must be some scientific testimony that can be interpreted as an inference of hypothetical probability before we can allow a jury to speculate upon the rights of citizens”) (quoting Parker v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 440 S.W.2d 43, 49 (Tex.1969)). Plaintiff therefore cannot withstand summary judgment by relying on her own testimony about her exposures to defendants’ products and her alleged injuries or by arguing for an inference of causation from “the totality of the circumstances.” Cottle, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d at 892 (“In California, causation must be founded upon expert testimony and cannot be inferred from the jury’s consideration of the totality of the circumstances unless those circumstances include the requisite testimony on causation.”). Plaintiff has presented declarations from four experts on various aspects of the issue of causation: Nachman Brautbar, M.D., an internist and nephrologist; Gunnar Heuser, M.D., an internist; Richard Perillo, Ph.D., a neuropsyehologist; and Jack Thrasher, Ph. D., an anatomist and cell biologist. In order to prove that a defendant’s conduct was the cause in fact of her injuries, a plaintiff must establish that such conduct was “a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co., 31 Cal.App. 4th 1409, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 905 (1 Dist.1995). Thus, in order to hold a defendant liable, plaintiff must prove “a reasonable medical probability based upon competent expert testimony that the defendant’s conduct contributed to plaintiffs injury.” Id. (citation omitted). To withstand summary judgment as to a defendant, then, plaintiff must present evidence from which a rational jury could find such a reasonable medical probability as to that defendant’s conduct. IFF argues that plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment on a normal causation theory, since none of plaintiffs experts could say that there was a reasonable medical probability that either Boss or Drakkar Noir (the only two of the seven fragrances for which IFF manufactures the concentrated fragrance oils) contributed to her injuries. The other defendants make the same argument as to their products. Defendants further argue that plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment on a market-share liability theory or by otherwise shifting the burden of (dis)proving causation to defendants. Plaintiff makes three arguments in opposition. First, she argues that a jury could in fact find, based on her experts’ testimony, that defendants’ products were a substantial factor in causing her injuries. The Court disagrees. While a jury could probably find that defendants’ products, as a whole, were a substantial factor in causing her injuries, plaintiff has no evidence whatever from which a jury could find that any particular defendant’s products were. Second, she argues in essence that the Court should adopt a “common-sense,” lay interpretation of causation. She contends that because her injuries are of the type caused by defendants’ products, she was exposed to same, and there is a temporal connection between such exposures and her experience of symptoms, a jury could find that defendants’ products caused her injuries. Whatever the “common-sense” appeal of this argument, it fails because California law clearly requires expert testimony on causation in a case like this. In addition, this argument equates symptoms with injuries, but her experts testify unanimously that they cannot say that she was injured each time she experienced a symptom. Finally, plaintiff argues that, based upon fairness grounds, the Court should shift the burden on causation to defendants. In so arguing, plaintiff does not exactly urge the application of market-share liability under Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 285, 66 L.Ed.2d 140 (1980), or alternative liability under Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948); rather, she asks the Court to apply “some type of modified market share theory of liability.” Based upon its review of the California authorities, the Court concludes that such burden-shifting is limited to cases meeting the criteria of either Sindell or Summers, and, as plaintiff implicitly recognizes in arguing for a “modified” burden-shifting theory, this case does not fall within either one. Mindful of its role as a federal court sitting in diversity, the Court therefore declines to effect the “modification” which plaintiff advocates. A. Traditional, Direct Causation Plaintiffs claimed injuries are sinus inflammation, toxic encelopathy (brain damage), dysosmia (deranged sense of smell), small airways disease (or reactive airways disease), and multiple chemical sensitivity (“MCS”). Brautbar Depo. 37/20-39/6; Heuser Depo. 64/23-68/19; 118/4-120/12; Thrasher Depo. 84/2-85/5. Plaintiff contends that her injuries were caused by her acute exposures to formaldehyde in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and exacerbated by thousands of exposures to fragrance products containing aldehydes between 1993 and the present. Pl.Depo. 374/15-383/25; Brautbar Depo. 46/8-47/20; 65/8-67/9; 69/16-70/9; 155/12-22;, 318/5-320/25; Heuser Depo. 70/8-23; Thrasher Depo. 101/11-17; Thrasher Decl. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to fragrance products on over 16,000 occasions between April 1994 and October 1995. Pl. Depo. 1022/7-1023/5; Feb. 8, 1996 letter from Friedman to Kroft at 3 (Exh. A to Kroft Decl.). (Plaintiff originally testified that she had been exposed to fragrance products over ten times per day, but she corrected her deposition transcript to state that the proper figure was 30, which works out to over 16,000 exposures during that time period.) For 70 percent of those occasions, plaintiff is unable to identify the fragrance product or products to which she was exposed. PLDepo. 1019/4r-24; 199/20-200/15; 887/9-888/1; First Amended Complaint ¶ 20; PLResp. to Interr. No. 18 & 20. Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to Boss on two occasions and to Drakkar Noir on 20-30 occasions. Pl.Depo. 238/16-239/9; 964/2-10. As noted above, plaintiffs experts testify. that her injuries were caused by aldehydes in fragrance products. But none of her experts was able to express an opinion that her injuries were caused by any particular fragrance product or any particular exposure. When asked what fragrance products he believed caused plaintiff’s toxic encelopathy, Brautbar admitted that “I can give you the name of the colognes or perfumes that she mentioned, but I don’t know what are the specific fragrance.” Brautbar Depo. 56/20-57/1. Brautbar was also asked: “Do you have an opinion as to which specific brands of fragrance products caused an actual injury in Ms. Sanderson’s sinuses?” His answer was: “Not specific ones. She described all kind of names, but I don’t recall offhand which brands they are.” Id. 295/4-296/9. (He later recalled that on one occasion, a fragrance product which he was wearing appeared to injure plaintiff, but he didn’t know what that product was. Id. 296/16-297/6.) Heuser similarly admitted that he did not have an opinion as to what specific substance(s) caused plaintiff’s injuries. Heuser Depo. 67/12-68/4; 339/7-10. Perillo also was unable to identify any specific fragrance product or exposure as causing plaintiffs injuries. Perillo Depo. 115/3-116/5. Perillo agreed that he could not say that “any particular exposure to any specific fragrance on any one occasion necessarily caused or worsened Miss Sanderson’s neuropsychological condition.” Id. 132/2-24. Thrasher was asked: “Are you able to state that in your opinion the unsaturated aldehydes [in Boss and Drakkar Noir] caused any one of Miss Sanderson’s injuries as opposed to something else causing those injuries?” He replied, “No, I don’t think I can really make that statement.” Thrasher Depo. 90/2-22. Later in his deposition, Thrasher reaffirmed that he had no opinion as to whether any specific exposure to any particular fragrance product caused any of plaintiffs injuries. Id. 281/9-283/5. Even without expert testimony that any particular fragrance product or exposure injured plaintiff, she might be able to prove that a particular product was a substantial factor in causing her injuries if there were expert testimony that all of the exposures and all fragrance products injured her in the same manner and to the same degree, provided that she was exposed to a substantial amount of that product. But plaintiffs experts acknowledge that such is not the case. They admit that not every exposure resulted in an injury (even if it did produce symptoms), and that aldehydes (and therefore fragrance products) differ in their effects on health. Heuser testified that he could not say that every exposure injured plaintiff. Heuser Depo. 502/7-14; 338/20-339/6 (“not every exposure would have to be injurious”). Thrasher agreed that not every occasion where plaintiff experiences a symptom from exposure to a fragrance product results in an injury. Thrasher Depo. 278/1-281/8. Perillo concurred: “Q: Is it your opinion that every time she reports a symptom when she smells the odor of a fragrance product that means she’s sustaining an injury to her brain at that moment? A: No.” Perillo Depo. 131/22-132/1. ’ Thrasher, the only expert qualified to discuss the chemical composition and properties of aldehydes, testified that no two aldehydes have the same chemical composition: “Structure-wise they are not the same, there is just no question about that.” Thrasher Depo. 274/22-275/3. He described the different kinds of aldehydes, and testified that different aldehydes have different health effects, based on their different chemical structure. Specifically, he testified that only “unsaturated” aldehydes likely caused plaintiffs injuries: “Q: Is it your opinion that all aldehydes, no matter what they are, and what fragrance product they were contained in, that she was exposed to, caused her injuries? A: No, I didn’t say that____ There are certain aldehydes that I’m not overly concerned about____ Those with unsaturated bonds, that’s what I’m concerned about.” Id. 87/12-89/4. He then went through a list of aldehydes contained in Boss that he believed were not dangerous. Id. 89/5-90/1. (Even after narrowing it down to the dangerous unsaturated aldehydes in Boss and Drakkar Noir, Thrasher still could not say that those aldehydes caused any of plaintiffs injuries. Id. 90/2-22.) Later in his deposition, Thrasher discussed some differences in health effects of different aldehydes. Id. 277/4-21. The evidence may be summarized as fob lows: Plaintiff was exposed to countless different fragrance products, most of which she can’t identify. She was exposed to fragrance products more than 16,000 times. Her experts say that she sustained various injuries from these exposures, or that they exacerbated existing injuries originally caused by exposure to formaldehyde in the past. None of the experts can tie any injury to any particular fragrance product or exposure. Plaintiff says she was exposed to IFF’s products between 22 and 32 times, out of the total of more than 16,000. Her experts admit that not every exposure caused an injury and that different aldehydes have different health effects, meaning that different fragrance products posed different risks. Therefore, no matter how small a defendant’s contribution can be and still be a “substantial factor” in causing a plaintiffs injuries, here there is no evidence that any defendant’s products made any contribution whatever. Based on the expert testimony presented, a jury could not find that IFF’s products were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries. It could not find that Calvin Klein’s products were a substantial factor, or that Cosmair’s products were a substantial factor, or that any other particular defendant’s products were a substantial factor in causing any injury to plaintiff. At best, plaintiff could prove that exposure to fragrance products caused her injuries and that she was exposed to defendants’ fragrance products. But that establishes only a “mere possibility” that defendants’ fragrance products were the ones that caused her injuries, and even less of a possibility that any one defendant’s products caused them. Such a “mere possibility” is not enough. Jones, 209 Cal.Rptr. at 460; Cottle, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d at 892; Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51 F.3d 834, 838 (9th Cir.1995) (applying California law). Unless plaintiff is somehow relieved of proving by expert testimony that each defendant caused her to suffer injury, she cannot recover against any of them. B. Plaintiffs “Commonr-Sense” Approach to Causation Plaintiffs next argument is that she doesn’t need to prove causation by expert testimony. She contends that her “sensation of pain immediately following each of her more than 16,000 exposures to fragrance products, including defendants’ fragrance products, is sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact” as to causation. Opp. to Causation Mot. at 1. Two responses are in order. First, the California authorities mentioned above require that causation be proved by expert medical evidence. The etiology of the injuries plaintiff claims (MCS, small airways disease, toxic encelopathy) is beyond the experience of laypeople. That is the law which this Court is bound to apply in this case. Second, even on its own terms, plaintiffs argument fails, because (as discussed in the last section) her experts testify that she did not sustain an injury each time she experienced a symptom from exposure to a fragrance product. Thus, even if the “temporal connection” which plaintiff emphasizes could suffice to prove that defendants’ products caused her to experience certain symptoms, it does not suffice to prove that defendants’ products caused her MCS, toxic encelopathy, chronic nasal problems, or small airways disease. Since those are the injuries she’s suing for— not the ephemeral sensation of pain upon smelling a perfume — her theory doesn’t help her. Plaintiffs argument misconceives her causation burden. She objects: “How many thousands of-.times does plaintiff need to develop symptoms immediately following exposure to fragrance products for an expert or a layman with the assistance of expert testimony to find that the relationship is more than one of possible coincidence?” Opp. to Causation Mot. at 20. The answer is that that’s the wrong question: even if plaintiff developed symptoms upon exposure to fragrance products an infinite number of times, that wouldn’t get her anywhere as to IFF, Calvin Klein, Lancaster, Cosmair, or any other particular defendant. To hold a defendant liable, a plaintiff has to prove that that defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Plaintiffs only hope of meeting her causation burden lies in shifting it to defendants. C. Plaintiffs Argument for Shifting the Burden on Causation As discussed above, plaintiff appears to recognize that this case does not meet the Sindell criteria for market share liability or the Summers v. Tice criteria for alternative liability. She therefore urges the Court to adopt “some type of modified market share theory of liability.” Opp. to Causation Mot. at 21. California law recognizes two burden-shifting theories, applicable in different and narrowly circumscribed circumstances. As will be seen, neither theory applies in this case. 1. Summers v. Tice: “Alternative Liability” First, in Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 86, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), the supreme court held that burden-shifting is appropriate under the theory of “alternative liability” when the plaintiff has sued all of the persons who may have caused her injury, they all acted tortiously, and it is certain that one of the defendants actually caused the plaintiff’s damages. See Sindell, 163 Cal.Rptr. at 139, 607 P.2d at 931. This “alternative liability” is joint and several, not proportionate to the defendant’s market share as in Sindell. The California courts have adhered strictly to the requirement that all potentially responsible defendants be sued. In Sin-dell, the supreme court explicitly rejected the Summers theory of liability because “[tjhere, all the parties who were or could have been responsible for the harm to the plaintiff were joined as defendants. Here, by contrast, there are approximately 200 drug companies which made DES, any of which might have manufactured the injury-producing drug.” Id. The courts of appeal have also confined application of alternative liability to cases where all potentially responsible parties have been sued. The Lineaweaver court’s discussion is especially apposite: Unlike Summers, there are hundreds of possible tortfeasors among the multitude of asbestos suppliers. As our Supreme Court has recognized, the probability that any one defendant is responsible for plaintiff’s injury decreases with an increase in the number of possible tortfeasors. [citing Sindell, 163 Cal.Rptr. at 139, 607 P.2d at 931] When there are hundreds of suppliers of an injury-producing product, the probability that any of a handful of joined defendants is responsible for plaintiff’s injury becomes so remote that it is unfair to require defendants to exonerate themselves. [Id.] The probability that an individual asbestos supplier is responsible for plaintiffs injury may also be decreased by the nature of the particular product. Asbestos products have widely divergent toxicities. [citation] Unlike the negligent hunters of Summers, all asbestos suppliers did not fire the same shot. Yet, under a burden shifting rule, all suppliers would be treated as if they subjected plaintiff to a hazard identical to that posed by other asbestos products. 37 Cal.Rptr.2d at 907. Plaintiff here relies on Merme v. Celotex Corp., 861 F.2d 1453, 146-L-70 (10th Cir.1988) (applying Nebraska law) in arguing that since she has proven that she was injured by exposure to fragrance products and that she was exposed to defendants’ fragrance products, defendants should bear the burden of proving that it was not their fragrance products that caused the injuries. But the Lineaweaver court expressly rejected that precise argument: In truth, Merme and the concurring opinion would require every joined defendant to exonerate itself upon nothing more than plaintiffs showing of exposure to defendants’ asbestos products, some of which may have caused harm. Again, we return to probabilities and, as discussed, the probability that a particular asbestos supplier joined as a defendant has caused a plaintiff’s injury is often remote given the hundreds of possibly responsible parties and the unequal hazards posed by different asbestos products. 37 Cal.Rptr.2d at 908 (emphasis in original). Another very recent court of appeal ease “decline[d] to expand the doctrine of alternative liability” where the plaintiff did not contend that “all potential tortfeasors have been joined.” Setliff v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 32 Cal.App.4th 1525, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 763, 768 (3 Dist.1995). Plaintiff relies on Pereira v. Dow Chemical Co., Inc., 129 Cal.App.3d 865, 181 Cal.Rptr. 364 (1 Dist.1982), in which the plaintiff alleged that exposure to four different chemicals caused his kidney damage. The court held that “[u]nder the circumstances, it is not plaintiffs duty to identify which of the vapors caused or contributed to the chronic renal failure but, rather, it is the duty of the defendants who supplied Midcor with their products to prove the contrary.” Id., 181 CaLRptr. at 368. The court cited Summers’ explanation that “[t]he real reason for the rule that each joint tortfeasor is responsible for the whole damage is the practical unfairness of denying the injured person redress simply because he cannot prove how much damage each did, when it is certain that between them they did all; let them be the ones to apportion it among themselves.” Id. 0citing Summers, 33 Cal.2d at 85-86, 199 P.2d 1). In the instant case, in contrast, plaintiff is not merely unable to prove “how much” damage each defendant did; she can’t prove that any defendant did any damage. And it is most emphatically not “certain” that between all of the defendants, they caused all of plaintiffs injuries. Plaintiff’s only other authorities are a court of appeal case in which review was granted and which therefore cannot be cited and the Restatement. The Restatement includes a Comment that does not rule out extension of alternative liability to cases where all potential tortfeasors are not before the court: The cases thus far decided in which the rule stated in Subsection (3) has been applied all have been cases in which all of the actors involved have been joined as defendants---- It is possible that cases may arise in which some modification of the rule stated may be necessary because of complications arising from the fact that one of the actors involved is not or cannot be joined as a defendant____ Since such cases have not arisen, and the situations which might arise are difficult to forecast, no attempt is made to deal with such problems in this Section. The rule stated in Subsection (3) is not intended to preclude possible modification if such situations call for it. Restatement 2d Torts, § 433B, cmt. h, at 446. But the Restatement offers plaintiff no help. For one, it doesn’t even advocate the position plaintiff takes here. More importantly, the court of appeal considered this very Comment in Setliff but was unpersuaded. See 38 Cal.Rptr.2d at 768. The Court therefore holds that, under California law, plaintiff cannot shift the causation burden to defendants under Summers because she has not sued all potentially responsible parties. 2. Sindell: Market-Share Liability The other doctrine which California law provides for shifting the causation burden is the market-share liability theory first applied in Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal.3d 588, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924 (1980). Unlike Summers, the Sindell doctrine applies where the plaintiff has not sued all potentially responsible parties, and it imposes liability in proportion to the defendant’s market share, rather than the joint and several liability imposed under Summers. This doctrine may be summarized as follows: “Under the market share liability theoiy of liability, a plaintiff harmed by a fungible product that cannot be traced to a specific producer may sue various manufacturers of the product if the plaintiff joins a substantial share of those makers as defendants.” Setliff, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d at 769 (quoting Richie v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 22 Cal.App.4th 335, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 421 (1 Dist.1994)). The supreme court in Sindell emphasized that there was no unfairness in dispensing with individualized proof of causation as among the various potential tortfeasors because their products were identical. Since the DES manufactured by the 200 potential tortfeasors was all produced from the same formula, it is more accurate to speak of a single product, with many manufacturers. See 163 Cal.Rptr. at 144-45, 607 P.2d at 936-37; Mullen v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 200 Cal.App.3d 250, 246 Cal.Rptr. 32, 35 (1 Dist.1988) (observing that the Sindell court “took pains to establish that it was dealing with ‘fungible goods’ — specifically, a drug produced ‘from an identical formula’ ”). Just as the court of appeal in Mullen held that asbestos was not the “simple equivalent ]” of DES, the fragrance products which plaintiff contends caused her injuries are not fungible goods made from an identical formula and therefore cannot be equated with the DES at issue in Sindell. Mullen, 246 Cal. Rptr. at 35-36. The only difference between DES manufactured by Eli Lilly and DES manufactured by Abbott was the return address on the package sent by the manufacturer to the pharmacy. Such is not the case here. Plaintiff does not allege that the various defendants’ fragrance products are identical; Drakkar Noir and Cool Water and the rest of defendants’ perfumes and colognes differ in their composition, not just in the name on the package. What’s more, plaintiffs experts acknowledge that different aldehydes have different health effects. Since different fragrance products contain different aldehydes at different concentrations and in different combinations, it cannot be said that plaintiff is targeting a single product made by many manufacturers. Plaintiff appears to recognize that her case doesn’t really fit Sindell's criteria, so she advocates the acceptance of a “modified” version óf the market-share theory. But it would be inappropriate for this Court to adopt an extension of that California doctrine here, because the California cases since Sin-dell have limited market-share liability to the circumstances described in Sindell. In Mullen, the court refused to apply the market-share theory because the various defendants’ asbestos products were not identical: because “plaintiffs are attacking an entire industry, not seeking recovery for damages caused by a single fungible product ‘carrying with it a singular risk factor,’ ” “the prerequisite of fungibility has not been demonstrated.” 246 Cal.Rptr. at 37 (quoting Case v. Fibreboard Corp., 743 P.2d 1062, 1066 (Okla.1987)). All of the asbestos products shared an important characteristic in that they all contained asbestos fibers, but they also possessed divergent characteristics, such as “ ‘the specific type of asbestos fiber incorporated into the product; the physical properties of the product itself; and the percentage of asbestos used in the product.’ ” Id. at 36 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Copeland, 471 So.2d 533, 537-38 (Fla. 1985)). Similarly, in the instant case, defendants’ fragrance products all (at least allegedly) contain aldehydes, but each contains different types of aldehydes, with different physical properties, at different levels of concentration. It would therefore be contrary to Mullen to apply the market-share theory in this case. Moreover, the market-share theory is inapplicable in this case because plaintiff has not joined as defendants a substantial share of the market. In Sindell, the supreme court did not specify a market-share percentage that would have to be before the court for the doctrine to apply; it merely stated that the determination of market share could not be accomplished at the pleading stage at which the action had been dismissed. 163 Cal.Rptr. at 145-46, 607 P.2d at 937. Five years after Sindell, the supreme court held that a ten percent market share was insufficient to permit application of the market share liability doctrine. Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., 40 Cal.3d 672, 221 Cal.Rptr. 447, 455, 710 P.2d 247, 254-55 (1985). The court explained that “if the plaintiff joined in the action the manufacturers of a substantial share of the DES which her mother might have taken, the injustice of shifting the burden of proof to defendants to exonerate themselves would be significantly diminished.” Id., 221 Cal.Rptr. at 455, 710 P.2d at 255. Similarly, it was not unjust to require the two defendants in Summers to exonerate themselves, since there was a 50 percent chance that each of them was the tortfeasor. Id. The court concluded that a ten percent chance that Squibb was the tortfeasor, compared to a 90 percent chance that a manufacturer not joined as a defendant was the tortfeasor, was not sufficient to meet the substantial market share prong of the doctrine. Id. Plaintiff has not even attempted to show that she has joined a substantial share of the fragrance product market (and considering the size of that market, the Court strongly doubts that she has). The Court therefore holds that, under California law, plaintiff cannot shift the causation burden to defendants under Sindell, because plaintiff was not injured by a fungible product made by many different manufacturers and because plaintiff has in any event not joined a substantial share of the market for the products that she alleges injured her. II. DAUBERT Although defendants filed their motion for an order excluding plaintiffs expert witnesses on the issue of causation (“Daubert motion”) as a separate document from their motion for summary judgment on the issue of causation, the Daubert motion is in reality an alternative argument as to why plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of fact as to whether she can prove causation. In other words, defendants’ causation motion argued that even if all of plaintiffs experts’ testimony on the issue of causation was admitted, it did not create a triable factual dispute thereon; defendants’ Daubert motion argues that plaintiffs experts’ testimony on the issue of causation is in any event inadmissible. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth a new test for the admissibility of expert scientific evidence, replacing the theretofore-dominant test derived from Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir. 1923). The test laid down in Daubert has two components. First, a court must determine “whether the experts’ testimony reflects ‘scientific knowledge,’ whether their findings are ‘derived by the scientific method,’ and whether their work product amounts to ‘good science.’ ” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.1995) (“Daubert on remand ”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 189, 133 L.Ed.2d 126 (1995) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 593, 113 S.Ct. at 2795, 2797). Second, the court “must ensure that the proposed expert testimony is ‘relevant to the task at hand,’ i.e., that it logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party’s case.” Id. (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-95, 113 S.Ct. at 2797). The first prong may be referred to as the “reliability” requirement, and the second prong is sometimes known as the “fit” requirement. Id. Plaintiff, as the proponent of the expert testimony, bears the burden of showing that both prongs are satisfied. Id. at 1315, 1316, 1318 n. 10. Defendants argue that plaintiffs experts— Brautbar, Heuser, Perillo, and Thrasher— fail both prongs of Daubert. They further argue that the testimony of Brautbar, Heuser, and Perillo on the issue of causation should be excluded because plaintiff did not designate them to testify as to causation and because they did not submit Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert witness reports as to causation. (Plaintiff designated them to testify only to the nature, extent, and physiological reality of her injuries.) In addition, they argue that Perillo, a neuropsyehologist who has no training in medicine, toxicology, or chemistry, does not qualify as an expert on the issue of causation. Lastly, they argue that all testimony as to MCS should be excluded because MCS does not exist as a recognized medical condition. A. Reliability 1. Plaintiff’s experts did not rely on their own research, on published research by others, or on other objective sources To demonstrate the reliability of proffered scientific evidence, an expert’s “bald assurance of validity is not enough. Rather, the party presenting the expert must show that the expert’s findings are based on sound science, and this will require some objective, independent validation of the expert’s methodology.” Id. at 1316. The Ninth Circuit discussed the dangers of relying on litigation-related research, and concluded “[t]hat the testimony proffered by an expert is based directly on legitimate, preexisting research unrelated to the litigation provides the most persuasive basis for con-eluding that the opinions he expresses were derived by the scientific method.” Id. at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the best way for an expert to provide the requisite “objective, independent validation” of his methodology is to show that his conclusions are based on his own research, and that his research is legitimately scientific (i.e., “whether it’s been subjected to peer review and publication; whether it can be and has been tested; and whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable,” id. at 1316 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-95, 113 S.Ct. at 2796-97)). Here, none of plaintiffs experts can do this, because none has conducted any research (either before or during this litigation) regarding the health effects of defendants’ fragrance products or the aldehydes contained therein. Plaintiffs opposition does not allege that any of her experts has conducted any such research. (None of plaintiffs experts has even conducted uncontrolled, informal tests on plaintiff to determine the effects on her of exposure to fragrance products.) The next way a proponent of expert testimony can demonstrate its reliability is by showing that, in forming his opinion, the expert relied on “research and analysis [that] have been subjected to normal scientific scrutiny through peer review and publication.” Id. at 1318. Thus, even if the expert has never done any relevant research of his own, his testimony could be reliable if he relies on the published work of others, since “[t]hat the research is accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal after being subjected to the usual rigors of peer review is a significant indication that it is taken seriously by other scientists, i.e., that it meets at least the minimal criteria of good science.” Id. Here, plaintiff cannot make such a showing, because there is no published work showing that fragrance products or aldehydes cause any of the injuries which plaintiff claims to have. Thus, plaintiff does not contend that her experts’ opinions are reliable because they relied on published scientific literature showing that fragrances or aldehydes can cause the type of injuries which she claims to have. Indeed, her opposition admits that there is no such literature. See Opp. to Dcmbert Mot. at 11 (“the fact is that fragrance chemicals are not tested for neurotoxicity or other chronic effects”); id. at 13 (there is a “dearth of research on the neurotoxic effects of fragrances and fragrance chemicals”). Even if an expert did not rely on published, peer-reviewed research in coming to his conclusions, his testimony is not necessarily unreliable. Daubert on remand, 43 F.3d at 1319 (“the experts must explain precisely how they went about reaching their conclusions and point to some objective source — a learned treatise, the policy statement of a professional association, a published article in a reputable scientific journal or the like — to show that they have followed the scientific method, as it is practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists in their field”). But plaintiff cannot make any of these alternative showings either, because there are no learned treatises or professional associations that say fragrance products or aldehydes can cause the injuries which plaintiff claims to have. The secondary sources mentioned in plaintiffs opposition do not mention any of plaintiffs claimed injuries or discuss a methodology for determining whether fragrance products or aldehydes have caused particular injuries, and none of plaintiffs experts said he relied on any of them in coming to his conclusions, much less “explained] precisely how [he] went about reaching [his] conclusions.” See Claar, 29 F.3d at 502-03 (“Coming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method”); Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 423 n. 2 (5th Cir.1987) (“We agree that an expert who forms an opinion before he begins his research is biased and lacking in objectivity”). 2. Plaintiffs attempt to evade Daubert: the “Thrasher test” Perhaps because she clearly cannot meet its requirements, plaintiff does not even cite Daubert on remand or the Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert. Instead, plaintiff invokes a test of her own: the “Thrasher test.” Plaintiff concedes that “[t]he only expert who is testifying on the ultimate issue of causation on plaintiffs behalf is Dr. Thrasher.” Opp. to Daubert Mot. at 4. Plaintiff explains the methodology that Thrasher used in concluding that plaintiffs injuries were caused by the aldehydes in the fragrance products to which she was exposed. Thrasher declares that he asked six questions: “(1) was the patient exposed to a chemical which is toxic? (2) was the patient exposed to enough of the toxic chemical to produce a toxic injury?; (3) is there a temporal or other relationship between the exposure to the toxic chemical and the development of physical symptoms?; (4) have other possible causes for the physical symptoms been ruled out? (5) have the physical symptoms been tied to objective medical evidence of abnormality? and (6) are all of the patient’s symptoms and lifestyle changes taken as a whole consistent with other cases of known chemical injury?” Thrasher Decl. ¶ 14. Plaintiff concedes that the testimony of Heuser, Brautbar, and Perillo “is intended only to satisfy certain prongs of the test set forth by Thrasher to establish causation,” specifically prongs 4, 5, and 6. Opp. to Daubert Mot. at 4. The Court will not go into detail about whether Thrasher’s “test” is satisfied, because it’s not a reliable, scientifically valid test. First, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that Thrasher’s methodology constitutes “the scientific method, as it is practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists in their field.” Daubert on remand, 43 F.3d at 1319. Plaintiff has not presented evidence that even one single other scientist follows Thrasher’s methodology. As best anyone could tell from the evidence before the Court, Thrasher simply made it up. That’s hardly the “objective, independent validation” required under Daubert. In fact, none of the publications cited by any of plaintiff’s experts mentions any methodology for determining whether fragrance products or aldehydes have caused the injuries claimed by plaintiff. Furthermore, the Court believes that Thrasher’s test is invalid. Consider this hypothetical: A plaintiff has a broken foot. He was exposed to large quantities of dioxin not long before he broke his foot. He’s not malingering and it’s not psychosomatic — his foot really is broken. He has no idea how he broke it; normal causes such as tripping and falling, sports injuries, and the like have been ruled out. All of Thrasher’s criteria are satisfied. Does that mean an orthopaedist can draw a scientifically valid conclusion that the dioxin caused the broken foot? Of course not, because there is no rehable scientific evidence that dioxin causes broken feet. The same statement applies here. There is no reliable scientific evidence that aldehydes in fragrance products cause MCS, toxic encelopathy, small airways disease, or dysosmia. While it is not as far-fetched to label the injuries of which plaintiff complains “toxic injuries” as it would be so to label a broken foot, the important point is that there is no scientific proof of the causal connection, and under Claar there has to be. To take a less obvious hypothetical, consider a plaintiff who has been exposed at his workplace to large quantities of chemicals which he believes to be toxic. He claims several injuries, including “dyscalculia” (poor arithmetic ability) and “spelling dispraxia” (poor spelling ability), which he alleges are the result of brain injuries caused by the chemical exposures. He really does have dyscalculia and spelling dispraxia — he can’t add or spell to save his life. The chemicals to which he was exposed are known to be capable (at certain concentrations and under certain circumstances) of causing certain injuries, such as contact dermatitis (when the chemicals touch the skin) and ashthma (when the chemicals are inhaled). Other causes of poor math and spelling ability (such as borderline mental retardation, certain discrete learning disabilities, and not attending school) have been ruled out. Under Thrasher’s test, the chemical exposures can be found to have caused the “dysealculia” and “spelling dispraxia” (at least if those “injuries” manifested themselves after the exposures began). But there is no scientifically reliable evidence that exposures to those chemicals can cause those injuries. It’s not inherently implausible like the dioxin/broken foot example, but there’s no scientific evidence of a causal connection. This hypothetical is an amalgam of Claar and the instant case. It could conceivably be scientifically established that aldehydes are capable of causing or exacerbating skin problems such as dermatitis as well as asthma. See Exh. 107, 108, 109 (studies proffered by Brautbar finding adverse effects from fragrance exposures in asthmatics); Thrasher Decl. ¶ 11; Thrasher Depo. 122/13-125/4; Exh. 103 (publications indicating that aldehydes are allergens that can cause dermatitis). But plaintiff doesn’t have asthma, and isn’t suing for the dermatitis which she suffered in 1991 (because she believes it was caused by the lotion which she used at the time, rather than exposures to perfumes and colognes). Pl. Depo. 1664/20-23; 1799/25-1800/3; 12/13/95 Tr. at 63; Pl. Resp. to Interr. No. 8. The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion in Claar disposes of plaintiffs argument: the district court found that the toxicology sections of the affidavits, which summarize the scientific literature discussing evidence that particular chemicals can cause particular injuries (and which thus are a necessary foundation for any conclusions the experts might draw), fail to discuss the majority of the medical conditions alleged by plaintiffs. Consequently, the court correctly determined that there is no evidence that the experts’ conclusions about the cause of these conditions are based on anything more than subjective belief and unsupported speculation. 29 F.3d at 502. This case is a fortiori, because the experts’ declarations don’t reveal reliable scientific evidence that any of the injuries claimed by plaintiff could have been caused by the particular chemicals alleged to be the culprits here. The teaching of the cases is that it is not enough that there be reliable scientific evidence that a particular chemical can cause a particular injury and that it be plausible that a second chemical could also cause that injury, or that the first chemical could also cause a different injury. Plausibility does not equal reliability; only “objective, independent validation” equals reliability, a. Thrasher’s reliance on other chemicals and other injuries Thrasher states that he relied on scientific literature involving individuals with similar health problems but who were injured “not necessarily with fragrances but from other chemicals.” Thrasher Depo. 177/8-16 (emphasis added). In addition to relying on chemicals other than those which plaintiff claims injured her, Thrasher also relied on fragrance products’ ability to cause injuries other than those claimed by plaintiff. In his declaration, Thrasher states as follows: In response to the question of whether Ms. Sanderson was exposed to toxic chemicals, I can state unequivocally that formaldehyde is a toxic chemical. At low levels it is an irritant and at higher levels it will destroy living cells. With respect to fragrance products to which Ms. Sanderson was or might have been exposed, I am only informed about the content of aldehydes in the concentrated fragrance oils for Boss and Drakkar Noir fragrance products. As to these aldehydes, the statement contained in the monograph for benzaldehyde appears applicable. It states, ‘Thomas (1958) reported ... that benzaldehyde, like other aldehydes and aldehyde-containing essential oils, was strongly irritating to the skin. ’ Based upon the foregoing statement and others which appear throughout the monographs and other research referred to hereinabove, it is my opinion that fragrance materials including but not limited to aldehydes, ketones, acetals and acetates are not only skin irritants, they are also sinus and respiratory tract irritants but to an even greater degree than they are skin irritants. This is due to the fact that the skin has an epithelial layer which protects it from irritants, whereas mucous membranes and the tissue comprising the respiratory tract have no such protective layer. Thrasher Deck ¶ 15; Opp. to Daubert Mot. at 6-7 (emphasis added by plaintiff). The fact that plaintiff underscored the statement that aldehydes are “strongly irritating to the skin” is extremely telling. The fact, if it be a fact, that aldehydes are irritating to the skin and can cause dermatitis, does not show that they can cause MCS, toxic encelopathy, small airways disease, or dysosmia. Thrasher’s deduction that skin irritants would be more powerful respiratory irritants is not implausible, but it’s based solely on his subjective belief — not research of his own, not the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not learned treatises, not the statement of a professional association: nothing. It is therefore not reliable under Daubert on remand. The closest Thrasher comes to a basis for his belief that aldehydes can cause the injuries of which plaintiff complains is in his mention of two studies that show central nervous system (CNS) effects from massive and chronic administration of benzaldehyde (which is present in Boss and Drakkar Noir) in rats. Exh. 102. The enormity of the dosages in the two studies, extrapolating linearly, would indicate that plaintiff would have had to drink millions of bottles of fragrance in order to experience the effects which the rats experienced. One of the studies expressly warns that “it is impossible to extrapolate from this study to human exposures.” Laham et ah at 508 (Exh. 102). Thrasher admitted that he had no information about the benzaldehyde dosages that would be required to induce CNS effects in humans, and admitted that he could not draw any conclusive opinion from the rat studies as to whether benzaldehyde had had any effect on plaintiff. Thrasher Depo. 125/6-127/19; 293/8-294/15. In addition, while these studies demonstrated CNS effects, which are not merely dermatitis or asthma and might suggest the capability of causing the injuries claimed by plaintiff, they did not actually demonstrate the specific injuries claimed by plaintiff. Nor has plaintiff presented any evidence that “at least a recognized minority” of experts in the field believe that, despite the warnings of the study’s authors, animal studies at extremely high doses may be reliably extrapolated to humans at very low dosages. “[I]n order for animal studies to be admissible to prove causation in humans, there must be good grounds to extrapolate from animals to humans, just as the methodology of the studies must constitute good grounds to reach conclusions about the animals themselves. Thus, the requirement of reliability, or ‘good grounds,’ extends to each step in an expert’s analysis all the way through the step that connects the work of the expert to the particular case.” In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 743 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1253, 131 L.Ed.2d 134 (1995); Joiner v. General Electric Co., 864 F.Supp. 1310, 1322-24 (N.D.Ga.1994). Perhaps in recognition of these various problems, plaintiff doesn’t mention these studies in her opposition. Thrasher’s reliance on chemicals other than those which plaintiff alleges injured her and on the ability of fragrance products to cause injuries other than those from which plaintiff claims to suffer in order to conclude that fragrance products caused plaintiffs injuries fails Daubert’s reliability standard. Claar, 29 F.3d at 502 (experts’ testimony about cause of injuries at issue was based on mere “subjective belief and unsupported speculation” where the scientific evidence they relied on didn’t discuss the majority of the injuries alleged by the plaintiff); Valentine v. Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co., Inc., 921 F.Supp. 666, 673-74 (D.Nev.1996) (excluding experts who would have testified that exposure to chlorine gas caused plaintiffs’ CNS problems in part on ground that while the “disastrous effects [of chlorine gas] on the human pulmonary system are not reasonably capable of question,” experts’ claims regarding chlorine gas’s effects “on the human brain and central nervous system” were “novel ... and unsupported by scientific research extraneous to this litigation”); Grimes v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 33, 38 (D.N.H.1995) (“even if it were generally accepted that some photosensitive chemicals will produce cataracts if they become photobound to lens protein, that general proposition would not fit the facts of this ease unless one could reliably draw an analogy between those photosensitive chemicals and Accutane”) (emphasis in original) (citing Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 83-84 (suggesting that an expert who bases an opinion on a proposed analogy that has not been investigated should not be permitted to testify because he is offering a “hunch” rather than an “explanatory theory”)); Cavallo v. Star Enterprise, 892 F.Supp. 756, 766 (E.D.Va.1995) (“While Rule 802 does not necessarily mandate that the expert find a study linking the exact chemicals at the exact exposure levels with the exact illnesses at issue, it does require that the expert demonstrate a scientifically valid basis for projecting the findings of a study identifying a different chemical-illness relationship to the proffered causal theory”) (emphasis in original); Schmaltz v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 878 F.Supp. 1119, 1122 (N.D.Ill.1995) (evidence “fails to make clear why the incidence of eye irritation in rabbits exposed to high doses of atrazine could reasonably lead a doctor to conclude that an indirect exposure to atrazine could cause pulmonary or respiratory conditions in humans”); Casey v. Ohio Med. Prods., 877 F.Supp. 1380, 1385 (N.D.Cal. 1995) (study showing link between halothane and cirrhosis not reliable scientific evidence of causal link between halothane and chronic active hepatitis). B. Fit The second prong of Daubert requires that the proponent of expert testimony demonstrate that it “logically advances a material aspect of [her] case.” 43 F.3d at 1315. Here, to prove causation against a defendant,, plaintiff must prove that her injuries were caused or exacerbated by that defendant’s products. In Daubert on remand, the court held that in order for expert testimony of causation to have “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry,” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, under California law, it must demonstrate that exposure to the defendant’s products “actually caused plaintiffs injuries” or, at least, that such exposure “more than doubled” plaintiffs risk of suffering those injuries. Daubert on remand, 43 F.3d at 1320-22. Otherwise, the expert testimony wouldn’t “assist the trier of fact” in resolving the issue. Fed.R.Evid. 702. As in Daubert on remand, none of plaintiffs experts, whatever the reliability of their testimony, testified that either Boss or Drakkar Noir — or any other of defendants’ fragrance products — actually caused her injuries or more than doubled her risk of suffering them. Thrasher testified that “to a reasonable scientific and toxicologic probability,” fragrance products were “a substantial factor in causing [plaintiffs] current medical condition.” Thrasher Decl. ¶¶ 21, 13. Brautbar testified that plaintiffs injuries were caused “to a reasonable medical probability and certainty” by fragrance products. Brautbar Depo. 318/18-320/15. Perillo testified at first that exposure to formaldehyde and fragrance products “most likely” caused plaintiffs toxic encelopathy. Exh. 75 at 4, 8; Perillo Depo. 109/22-110/19. But he then recanted and admitted that he couldn’t say what the cause of her injuries was. Perillo Depo. 268/6-269/11; 270/10-19. Heuser testified that exposure to fragrance products “significantly increased” plaintiffs chances of suffering her injuries. Heuser Depo. 206/17-208/23. When pressed on the precise question, Brautbar, Heuser, and Perillo refused to say that exposure to fragrance products more than doubled plaintiffs chances of suffering her injuries. See Brautbar Depo. 318/18-320/2 (“I cannot answer with double ... I really cannot calculate doubling or not doubling”); Heuser Depo. 206/25-207/18 (“I think there is no way of answering that really ... I would be more comfortable by saying that it significantly increased it without saying whether it doubled, tripled or not quite doubled it ... There is no way to give you a percentage”); Perillo Depo. 116/6— 121/8 (hedging and finally refusing to give an opinion on this question). Thrasher tried to quantify his opinion, saying that “reasonable scientific and toxicologic probability” means “51 percent or greater.” Thrasher Depo. 237/6-16; 177/1-7. This would constitute a “connection to the pertinent inquiry,” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, but it fails the requirement that the connection be “scientific,” since, as the following exchange illustrates, Thrasher had absolutely no basis for picking the 51 percent number: Q. How were you able to quantify it that way? A. It’s reasonable. That’s all I can tell you. It’s reasonable. Q. Wouldn’t 49 percent also be reasonable? A. No. Q. How did you get it to 51 percent? A. Because it’s a reasonable figure. It’s above 50 percent. Q. How did you get it above 50 percent? A. Pardon? Q. How did you get it above 50 percent? A. It’s a reasonable estimate on my part, a reasonable conclusion on my part. That’s it. Q. How did you calculate it to get above 50 percent? A. That’s a judgment call rather than a calculation call. It’s like a medical opinion call, 51 percent. It’s a scientific call at 51 percent. Thrasher Depo. 237/6-238/9. Thrasher could not identify anything other than pure temporal coincidence to support his probability estimate, and based it upon what he knows about people with similar health problems, “not necessarily with fragrances but from other chemicals.” Id. 177/8-16. He also admitted that there are no published statistics that would allow him to calculate or quantify the relative risk of any of plaintiffs injuries. Id. 158/20-159/12; 160/16-163/23. This is not a “scientific connection.” In Daubert on remand, the court held that there was no “fit” between the plaintiffs’ experts and the issue of causation because the experts could not testify that Bendectin more than doubled their risk of having limb-reduction birth defects. The court found that the background rate of such birth defects was one per one thousand births, and held that “plaintiffs must show that among children of mothers who took Bendectin the incidence of such defects was more than two per thousand.” 43 F.3d at 1320 (footnote omitted). “While plaintiffs’ epidemiologists make vague assertions that there is a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects, none states that the relative risk is greater than two. These studies thus would not be helpful, and indeed would only serve to confuse the jury, if offered to prove rather than refute causation. A relative risk of less than two may suggest teratogenicity, but it actually tends to dis prove legal causation, as it shows that Bendectin does not double the likelihood of birth defects.” Id. at 1321 (emphasis in original). Since Thrasher’s probability estimate is not founded upon epidemiological studies showing a relative risk of greater than two, or some other evidence that would lend a scientific foundation to the assertion that fragrances more likely than not caused plaintiffs injuries, it does not constitute “a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry” of causation. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592, 113 S.Ct. at 2796. None of plaintiffs other experts even says that the relative risk is more than two, so their testimony, even if totally reliable, would actually tend to disprove legal causation, just as in Daubert on remand. C. Other issues Plaintiff argues that because the Court prevented her from taking discovery about the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in fragrance products apart from aldehydes, she has been “precluded from determining what effect, if any, would result from the presence of alcohols, esters and ketones is [sic] said products. There appears to be no reasonable basis why the Court should allow discovery regarding aldehydes but bar discovery regarding alcohols, esters and ketones.” Opp. to Daubert Mot. at 9 n. 2. In fact, as IFF points out, there is a very good reason: plaintiff repeatedly stated that her theory was that aldehydes caused her injuries, and she never argued about other VOCs. E.g., 2/12/96 Tr. at