¹ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). moves to exclude all of Dr. Conway’s testimony. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert opinio testimony and “compels” the Court “to perform [a] critical ‘gatekeepin: function.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (e banc) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589 n.7, 597); see Fed. R. Evid. 702 witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’ scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact t understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony i based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliabl principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principle and methods to the facts of the case.”). To decide the admissibility of an expert’s opinions, the Court “engage|[s in a rigorous three-part inquiry” and considers (1) whether the expert i qualified to provide the opinions, (2) whether “the methodology by which th: expert reache[d the opinions] is sufficiently reliable,” and (3) whether it providing the opinions, the expert will help the factfinder “understand th: evidence or... determine a fact in issue.” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260 (quotin; City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chems., Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 562 (11th Cir. 1998)). To determine whether the expert’s methodology is reliable, the Cour applies factors from Daubert and Joiner?: (1) whether the expert’s theory o technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the expert’s theory o technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) what the theor or technique’s known or potential rate of error is, and whether there ar standards controlling its operation; (4) whether the theory or technique i generally accepted in the field; and (5) whether there is an analytical ga between the data and the opinion proffered. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94 Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146; see United States v. Pon, 963 F.3d 1207, 1220 (11th Cin June 29, 2020). “The party offering the expert has the burden of” establishin: the expert’s qualifications, the methodology’s reliability, and the opinions helpfulness to the factfinder “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Rink tu Cheminova, Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005). Ill. DISCUSSION Dr. Conway was retained by the Parneses to opine on several issues it this case, including the accommodations that S.P. requires to catch up with he peer group and to participate in public or private school and S.P.’s need for anc costs of healthcare services and private schooling. (Doc. 53 at 3, 16; Doc. 61 a 2, 4; Doc. 61-4 at 4). Dr. Conway wrote in his expert report (Doc. 61-4) that S.P “needs high intensity, high frequency, evidence-based intervention for he:

² Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 186, 146 (1997). [s]pecific [l]earning [d]isorders, AD/HD and her [d]evelopmental [c]oordinatio: [djisorder.” (Doc. 61-4 at 3). Dr. Conway opines based on his experienc “helping students with severe and many deficits,” his review of S.P.’s medica and school records, his evaluation of S.P., and speaking to the Parneses an family members. (Jd. at 4; Doc. 61 at 7—8; Doc. 61-3 17, 23, 35, 36). In fact, Dr. Conway evaluated S.P.’s records pertaining to her possibl enrollment in the online program “Neuro-development of Words, LLC (NOW!)—an EdTech company that Dr. Conway is affiliated with. (Doc. 61 at 7 Doc. 61-4 at 1-2, 4-5). Having done so, Dr. Conway opines that “only in-perso1 treatment... will improve [S.P.’s]...developmental difficulties that ar essential for paper and pencil, desktop and board to paper academic activities. (Doc. 61 at 7; Doc. 61-4 at 1-2, 4-5). And he opines that S.P. will need “6 hour per day, five days per week of one-to-one... treatment .. . to fully develop he academic skills to her oral language skills and abilities.” (61-4 at 4; Doc. 61 a 7-8; Doc. 61-3 J 17, 23, 35, 36). Those one-to-one services would “likely” hav a duration of “6 months, with a re-evaluation . .. and then perhaps another 4- months of... interventions, with post treatment testing at the end to facilitat transition to a proper school environment.” (Doc. 61-4 at 4-5). He states tha if at the end of “the 12 month intensive, transdisciplinary team interventio1 [S.P.] is still in need of ongoing supports . . . then she will likely need placemen in a small-class, private school environment.” (Jd.). And Dr. Conway recommends that S.P. “receive ongoing [occupation therapy] and speech-language therapy on a daily basis for a minimum of 20-3 minutes.” (Id.) He estimates that one year of services would cost $168,000, plus an additional $5,000 for pre-treatment testing and $3,500 fo mid-point testing. (/d.). Other costs that he estimates include $20,000 a yea in private school tuition and $10,000 a year for weekly occupational therapy an speech-language therapy services until S.P. graduates from high school. Ud. a 5-6). A. Dr. Conway is Qualified to Provide Opinion Testimony As an initial matter, contrary to the Board’s argument, Dr. Conway’ experience, training, and education qualify him to testify to the accommodation that S.P. requires to catch up with her peer group and to participate in publi or private school. (Doc. 53 at 3 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, Fed. R. Evid. 702 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597)). “Experts may be qualified in various ways, including by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Frazier, 38' F.3d at 1260 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702). From 1989 until 2008, Dr. Conway “completed supervised pre-doctora and post-doctoral training in the diagnosis and treatment o [nJeurodevelopmental [dJisorders in children and adults at The Morris Cente [(TMC)].” (oc. 61-4 at 1, 2). Dr. Conway received his bachelor’s degree i psychology, and he holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology with a concentration i neuropsychology. (Doc. 61-2 at 1). After completing his Ph.D., he completed post-doctoral fellowship at the VAMC3-Brain Rehabilitation Research Center « Excellence. (/d.). Since 2008, Dr. Conway has owned or managed TMC clinics in Florida; Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida; Birmingham, Alabama; Port of Spair Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies; and NOW!, an EdTech company. (Doc. 61- at 1-2). Also, since 2008, he has been training and directing teams of healthcar professionals (occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, clinics psychology/neuropsychology) and educators in the transdisciplinary assessmen and treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders. (Doc. 61-2 at 1). And he ha co-authored numerous publications, (see id. at 7-10; Doc. 61-4 at 1-2), an provided training courses and workshops to professionals, (see Doc. 61-2 at 11. 12). Dr. Conway is “professionally trained and published in lifespan neuropsychology, neurorehabilitation, neuroimaging ([single-photon emissio1 computed tomography], [functional magnetic resonance imaging], and [diffusio1 tensor imaging]) and neurodevelopmental transdisciplinary team assessmen and team treatment of [n]eurodevelopmental [d]isorders for children, teenager and adults.” (Doc. 61-3 {| 1; see also Doc. 61-4 at 1-2). Nonetheless, the Board claims that because Dr. Conway is not licensed i1 8 Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Florida or another state, he is unqualified to serve as an expert in school psychology, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, or K-1 educational needs. (Doc. 53 at 8-9). Here, the Board points to the lack information in Dr. Conway’s expert report or curriculum vitae that he is licensed psychologist, school psychologist, licensed occupational therapist, o licensed speech-language pathologist in Florida (or any other state). Ud. at 9 12 (citing §§ 490.003(7), 490.003(8), 490.005, 490.006, 490.013, Fla. Stat.)). Alsc the Board asserts that he is unqualified because he has never taught in a K-1 classroom in Florida and he is not a licensed educator in Florida. (Id. at 12). To the extent that the Board argues that Dr. Conway is unqualifie: because he is unlicensed in Florida, it has not stated how “this renders [Dr Conway] unqualified in this case.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Complete Car Cirs., LLC, No. 6:20-CV-1240-WWB-EJK, 2022 WL 16844858, at *3 (M.D. Fla Sept. 21, 2022) (citing Balthazar Mgmt., LLC v. Beale St. Blues Co., No. 17-cv 81214, 2018 WL 6928698, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2018)). Moreover, the Boar fails to explain its arguments that he is not licensed as a speech-languag pathologist in any jurisdiction or as an educator in Florida. See State Farm Mut Auto. Ins., 2022 WL 16844858, at *3. This argument goes to the weight that trier of fact might give the testimony, but it does not preclude admissibility. Id (citing McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1297 (11th Cir. 2004), and v. Blair Corp., No. 3:09-CV-8438, 2012 WL 2464000, at *9 (M.D. Ala. June 2’ 2012)). Finally, the Board argues that Dr. Conway is unqualified because h “never personally treated, evaluated, or assessed S.P. in a clinical or schox setting.” (Doc. 53 at 12). The Board fails to provide any basis for this which Dr. Conway expressly rebuts in his declaration. (Doc. 61-3 at 6—7). Th Parneses submit that Dr. Conway has evaluated S.P., reviewed her medical an school records (including those that the Board produced), and has spoken wit S.P. and her parents on “numerous occasions regarding [her] education.” (Ic { 14, 17, 23, 35, 36; Doc. 61 at 7-8 & n.2). Indeed, his expert report (Doc. 61 4) “was based on evaluation, information, and the status of [S.P.] at that time. (Doc. 61-3 35, 36).4 His “conclusions and recommendations for her treatmen plan will likely be modified if she is to enroll in [his] program.” (Id. {{ 36). Thus he took “the appropriate steps to evaluate” S.P. (Id. § 35). Accordingly, Dy Conway is sufficiently qualified to opine as an expert in this case. (Doc. 61 a 4), B. Dr. Conway is Not Offering a Causation Opinion Next, the Board argues that Dr. Conway’s report is limited to S.P.’

⁴ The Parneses state that it was unnecessary for Dr. Conway to perform anothe assessment or evaluation of S.P. because the Board does not dispute that she suffer from disabilities. (Doc. 61 at 8). Thus, Dr. Conway’s attention was focused on th remediation of S.P.’s education, brain development, and learning. (Id.). present treatment, education, and schooling needs, and thus the Court shoul exclude his “causation” opinions. (Doc. 53 at 3, 7; Doc. 61 at 2). The Boar submits that the “causation” opinions that Dr. Conway will offer are: (1) th alleged acts or omissions on the part of the Board, (2) the adequacy an appropriateness of any services and supports the Board provided S.P., and (3 whether the Board damaged or harmed S.P. (Doc. 53 at 3, 7; Doc. 61 at 2). Th Parneses explain that Dr. Conway’s report does not opine as to “causation because he is not going to offer a “causation” opinion. (Doc. 61 at 2~3). Thus Dr. Conway will not be permitted to provide a “causation” opinion. C. Reliability of Dr. Conway’s Methodology Next, the Board argues that Dr. Conway’s proposed opinions are not basec on a reliable methodology and are simply ipse dixit that will not assist the jury (Doc. 53 at 3). The Board says the Parneses failed to demonstrate that hi proposed testimony is scientifically valid because his expert report does no address the four factors identified in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. (Id. at 13) The Court is not persuaded. First, Dr. Conway’s opinions will help the jury to understand the parties positions and the remedies that the parties believe are appropriate o1 inappropriate. (Doc. 61 at 12). Unlike the Board’s citation to Clarke, Dr Conway’s opinion will assist the jury. (/d. at 18-19 (citing Clarke v. Schofield 632 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1368-70 (M.D. Ga. 2009))). In Clarke, the court precludec a doctor from opining as an expert on a decedent’s cause of death. 632 F. Sup] 2d at 1368-70. The court found that the doctor, an emergency room would clearly qualify “as an expert in a medical malpractice case against physician practicing family medicine or emergency medicine, but [the] case [dic not involve standard of care questions or questions about the diagnosis o treatment of (DVT) [deep venous thrombosis] or (PE) [pulmonary emboli].” Jc at 1357. Thus, the doctor was not allowed to opine as an expert because h would be “testifying . . . about questions that go beyond the scope of his regula medical practice.” Id. While the doctor may have permissibly opined “in generc about diagnosing and treating DVT and PE,” he could not opine as an expert “i determining the location of a DVT or the cause or etiology of a DVT ina specifi case.” Id. The doctor did “not treat dead patients” and he could not “perforn the standard clinical examination that he uses for live patients to form opinion about a corpse.” Jd. at 1358. Here, unlike in Clarke, Dr. Conway’s opinions are not so speculative (o outside the bounds of what he does) that his opinions will fail to assist the jury And while the Board argues that Dr. Conway’s lack of licensure means he wil not assist the jury, as previously discussed “lack of board-certification [or ; license] goes to weight, not admissibility.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 2022 WI 16844858, at *3 (citing McDowell, 392 F.3d at 1297 and Ledbetter, 2012 WI 2464000, at *9). Thus, Dr. Conway’s opinions will assist the jury.

⁵ Here, the Board lumps in Dr. Conway’s opinion about S.P.’s educational need. “until she graduates from high school” in its discussion of the reliability of his cos opinion. However, that opinion is more appropriately grouped with the prio discussion about his opinion on the accommodations that S.P. needs.

⁶ Transdisciplinary team assessments comprise “comprehensive [occupationa eh [speech-language therapy] and [p]sychoeducational testing.” (Doc. 61-4 a

⁸ Dr. Conway attests that while the costs may seem high, “the standard rate fo [speech-language therapy] and [occupational therapy] services [is] typically $150/hou and thus a true ‘Cadillac’ level of services . . . would cost $234,000 per year.” (Doc. 61 4 at 4). Dr. Conway’s report indicates that end-of-treatment testing may be a separat cost, but he does not provide any cost attributable to that testing. (Id.).