Barraza et al v. C R Bard Incorporated et al
Filing
95
ORDER denying 54 Motion to Certify Class. FURTHER ORDERED granting 57 Motion to Amend. The Clerk is directed to accept for filing document lodged as Doc. 58 in this case. FURTHER ORDERED granting 68 Motion to Exclude. FURTHER ORDERED The Court will hold a telephone conference with counsel on 9/29/17 at 1:00 p.m., to discuss future proceedings in this case. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate a conference call to include counsel for all parties and the Court. If a dial-in number is used, the dial-in information shall be provided to the Court and all parties no later than 9/28/17 at 4:00 PM. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/11/17.(MAP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Maria E. Barraza, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV16-01374-PHX-DGC
C. R. Bard Inc., and Bard Peripheral
Vascular Inc.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiffs Maria E. Barraza and others bring this case against Defendants C.R.
17
Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) seeking medical
18
monitoring. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and classes of individuals who have
19
been implanted with a Bard inferior vena cava filter, have not had that filter removed, and
20
have not filed a claim or lawsuit for personal injury related to the filter. Doc. 57-2 at 36-
21
41, ¶ 206. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. Doc. 54. The motion is
22
fully briefed, and the Court heard oral arguments on August 21, 2017. Docs. 54, 72, 78,
23
94.1 For reasons that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
24
I.
Background.
25
The inferior vena cava (“IVC”) is a large vein that carries de-oxygenated blood
26
from the lower body to the heart. This case concerns seven of Defendants’ IVC blood
27
1
28
Some portions of these documents have been redacted. Unredacted versions
have been filed under seal. In some places, this order cites to sealed documents without
identifying the sensitive information that resulted in their being sealed.
1
filters that were manufactured and marketed starting in 2003 for either permanent or
2
temporary use. Doc. 54-1 at 9.2 IVC filters are small devices placed in the IVC to stop
3
blood clots from travelling to the lungs. The Bard IVC filters at issue in this case are the
4
Recovery®, G2®, G2® Express, G2®X, Eclipse®, Meridian®, and Denali® filters.
5
Doc. 72 at 9.
6
Plaintiffs allege that these filters have defects that put users at an unacceptable risk
7
of serious injury or death. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiffs contend that the Bard filters tilt, perforate
8
the IVC, and fracture and migrate to neighboring organs such as the heart and lungs. Id.
9
Fractures can occur without notice or symptoms until serious physical injury or death
10
occurs. Id. Plaintiffs cite a wide range of medical sources and Bard documents to
11
support their claim that Bard IVC filters are more dangerous than other kinds of IVC
12
filters. Doc. 54-1 at 5-20.
13
Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ allegation of high risk levels, contending that the
14
overall complication rates associated with Bard IVC filters are low. Doc. 72 at 11.
15
Defendants note that there are many IVC blood filters on the market, that all of these
16
products involve risks that physicians and patients must consider when deciding whether
17
the patient’s medical condition warrants the implant of a blood filter, and that failure
18
rates for Bard filters are comparable to those of other IVC filters. Defendants contend
19
that the various warnings cited by Plaintiffs – issued by the FDA and other professional
20
groups – apply to all blood filters, not just Bard filters. Id. at 9-11.
21
Although the FDA and various medical organizations have recommended
22
monitoring of all patients with IVC filters, physicians follow-up with such patients at
23
relatively low rates. Doc. 54-1 at 16-19; Doc. 72 at 10. Removals of IVC filters, even
24
those intended to be temporary, also occur at low rates. Id. Each of the Plaintiffs and
25
proposed class members currently have Bard filters implanted in their IVC’s, and bring
26
this action to obtain medical monitoring to reduce the risk presented by such filters. This
27
28
2
Page citations are to numbers placed at the top of each page by the Court’s
CM/ECF electronic filing system rather than the document’s original page numbers.
-2-
1
Court currently is presiding over a multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL) involving
2
more than 2,500 personal injury cases arising out of Bard filters. This class action
3
involves many of the same attorneys and has been following a coordinated litigation track
4
with the MDL, but is otherwise separate.
5
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 5, 2017, after almost a
6
year of class-related discovery and expert disclosures.
7
recognized that only 16 states permit claims for medical monitoring, and sought
8
certification of a single class that includes filter recipients who reside in those states:
9
10
11
12
13
14
Docs. 22, 54.
The motion
Plaintiffs move to certify a class covering each of the states that allow
medical monitoring as a cause of action or remedy. The proposed class is
defined to include all individuals in the sixteen jurisdictions that allow
medical monitoring without manifest physical injury, who have been
implanted with a Bard retrievable filter since July 25, 2003 (the date Bard
received clearance to market the first of its filters as retrievable) to the
present, who have not had their filters removed (and are at least ninety days
post-implant), and who have not filed a personal injury lawsuit concerning
their Bard filter.
15
16
Doc. 54-1 at 21.
17
The motion recognizes that this case includes only 11 named Plaintiffs from 11 of
18
the 16 states, but asserted that these individuals could represent persons from the five
19
states that have no named Plaintiff. Id. at 23 n.20. To demonstrate the feasibility of this
20
class and a trial that encompasses all 16 states, Plaintiffs presented a trial plan which
21
asserts that the elements of medical monitoring claims are the same in all 16 states. Id. at
22
37-69. Plaintiffs identify these common elements: (1) exposure, (2) to a toxic substance
23
or hazard, (3) which exposure was caused by Defendants’ negligence or tortious conduct,
24
(4) resulting in an increased risk of a serious illness or injury, (5) for which a medical test
25
for early detection exists, (6) is reasonably necessary, and (7) is beyond that which is
26
offered in the ordinary course. Id. at 27.
27
28
-3-
1
Defendants responded to this proposed class, noting significant differences among
2
the laws of the 16 states to be included in the proposed class. Doc. 72-8. Defendants
3
made other arguments regarding the suitability of the proposed class under Rule 23.
4
Things changed significantly at the class certification hearing. Plaintiffs’ counsel
5
stated that they were not seeking certification of a single class for all 16 states, but
6
instead were seeking certification of 16 separate classes, one for each state that allows
7
medical monitoring claims. Doc. 94 at 50-51. Plaintiffs stated that they had provided the
8
Court with a single trial plan because they seek a consolidated trial of all 16 classes, and
9
they believe the Court could give a single set of jury instructions that blended the laws of
10
the 16 states.3 When it was noted that 5 of the 16 states have no class representative,
11
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the Court could certify the classes for these 5 states
12
without a class representative. Id. at 74. When this proposition was challenged – the
13
Court noted that Rule 23(a) cannot be satisfied without a class representative – Plaintiffs’
14
counsel changed tack again, stating that “[w]e are only asking that you certify the states
15
at this time where we have identified a rep. If the Court does certify those states, we
16
would ask for leave to add additional reps in the states that don’t have reps at the
17
moment.” Id. at 74-75. This was Plaintiff’s final position, and the one the Court will
18
address in this order.4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
This proposal, although not important in light of the Court’s ruling in this order,
makes no sense. If a class is governed by California law (setting aside individual class
member choice of law issues, as discussed below), the Court must instruct the jury using
California law, not some hybrid version of the law that the Court develops by combining
California with the laws of other states. See Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51
F.3d 1293, 1300 (7th Cir. 1995) (“If one instruction on negligence will serve to instruct
the jury on the legal standard of every state of the United States applicable to a novel
claim, . . . one wonders what the Supreme Court thought it was doing in the Erie case
when it held that it was unconstitutional for federal courts in diversity cases to apply
general common law rather than the common law of the state whose law would apply if
the case were being tried in state rather than federal court.”) (emphasis in original).
4
The Court will not allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to name class
representatives for the five proposed classes that lack named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had
months to seek such amendments, and did in fact change named Plaintiffs several times.
Adding new Plaintiffs now would require the class discovery period (see Doc. 22) to start
over, would prejudice Defendants, and would thwart the schedule the Court has sought to
follow in this case and the related MDL.
-4-
1
Thus, Plaintiffs seek certification of classes consisting of persons with Bard filters
2
in the following 11 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland,
3
Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Each of these classes
4
is represented by a single named Plaintiff.5
5
II.
Class Certification.
6
Under Rule 23(a), a district court may certify a class only if (1) it is so numerous
7
that joinder of all members is impractical, (2) there are questions of law or fact common
8
to the class, (3) the claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the
9
class, and (4) the representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
10
class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4). For reasons explained later in this order, the Court
11
finds that the named Plaintiffs are not typical of the class members.
12
requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied.
The other
13
The Court must also find that one of the requirements of Rule 23(b) has been met.
14
Plaintiffs seek class certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Doc. 54. Rule
15
23(b)(2) permits certification if “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act
16
on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive
17
relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed. R.
18
Civ. P 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(3) provides that class certification is appropriate if questions
19
of law or fact common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual
20
class members, and if a class action would be superior to other available methods for
21
resolving the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
22
23
The Court must rigorously analyze the proposed classes to ensure they comport
with Rule 23. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011).
24
25
5
26
27
28
At the end of this order, the Court addresses and grants a motion to amend the
complaint to modify the relief sought by Plaintiffs, and to make other modest changes to
the class definition. Doc. 57. The Court will address the motion for class certification in
light of these amendments. The Court also grants a motion to exclude two of Plaintiffs’
expert reports. Doc. 68. The Court enters this order without considering those experts
reports, but the Court would not have reached a different conclusion even if they were
considered.
-5-
1
A.
2
Rule 23(b)(3).
1.
Predominance.
3
“The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
4
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v.
5
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997); accord In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime
6
Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2009). “This calls upon courts to give careful
7
scrutiny to the relation between common and individual questions in a case.” Tyson
8
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1045 (2016).
9
“Considering whether ‘questions of law or fact common to class members
10
predominate’ begins, of course, with the elements of the underlying cause of action.”
11
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804, 809 (2011). Plaintiffs argue
12
that medical monitoring claims in all the relevant jurisdictions have the following
13
elements: (1) exposure, (2) to a toxic substance or hazard, (3) which exposure was caused
14
by the defendant’s negligence or tortious conduct, (4) resulting in an increased risk of a
15
serious illness or injury, (5) for which a medical test for early detection exists, (6) is
16
reasonably necessary, and (7) is beyond that which is offered in the ordinary course.
17
Doc. 54-1 at 27. The Court will focus on these elements in deciding whether common or
18
individual issues predominate in the proposed classes.6
19
a.
Elements One & Two: Exposure to a Toxicity or Hazard.
20
The first two elements of the medical monitoring claim – exposure to a toxic
21
substance or hazard – will not produce significant individual issues. Defendants do not
22
dispute that the named Plaintiffs each have been implanted with Bard IVC filters, nor that
23
thousands of additional individuals currently carry such filters. Thus, unlike a case where
24
6
25
26
27
28
Both parties dedicated significant portions of their briefing to whether these
elements were truly representative of the law in all of the states, with Defendants arguing
that there were significant differences among the various state laws that would defeat
class certification. Because Plaintiffs took the position during oral argument that they do
not seek to certify a single multi-state class, but instead seek eleven classes covering
specific states, differences among state laws will not affect predominance. The Court
normally would look to the law of each state to identify the elements of the claim and
address predominance, but the Court concludes that such detail is unnecessary. Even
using Plaintiffs’ seven elements, individual issues will predominate.
-6-
1
exposure to toxic substances might require individualized proof, exposure to Bard filters
2
exists for each person who has received such a filter. Although proof that class members
3
received Bard filters would be required during the claim phase if the classes were
4
certified and successful, that fact could be established with relative ease in an
5
administrative process.
6
With respect to the alleged hazards of Bard filters, Plaintiffs intend to make their
7
case through generalized evidence of failure rates, FDA warnings, expert testimony, and
8
other common evidence.
9
Defendants do not contend that individual issues will predominate on this element.
10
b.
Defendants will respond with similar general evidence.
Element Three: Negligence and Causation.
11
To satisfy the third element, Plaintiffs must show that they face an increased risk
12
of injury and require monitoring because of Defendants’ negligence in designing the
13
filters and failing to warn of their risks. Doc. 54-1 at 28.7 Plaintiffs argue that they can
14
establish this element with class-wide law and evidence – whether Defendants owed a
15
duty to Plaintiffs is a question of law that will not vary among class members, and
16
whether Defendants were negligent in designing and marketing the filters will be decided
17
on the basis of Defendants’ actions, not individual issues.
18
Defendants disagree. They assert that Plaintiffs’ proof of negligence will raise a
19
wide range of issues. The classes include seven different Bard filters manufactured and
20
marketed at different times over the course of more than 15 years. Doc. 72 at 20-21.
21
Defendants contend that the design processes and warnings for these filters varied across
22
kinds of filters and over time, as did Defendants’ knowledge concerning the risks
23
associated with the filters. Id. (citing Doc. 74-4, Exhibit 11).
24
25
26
27
28
7
Plaintiffs’ counsel clarified during oral argument that they allege injury resulting
only from Defendants’ negligence. Failure to warn and design defect are the alleged
bases for Defendants’ negligence, but Plaintiffs are not asserting any separate failure to
warn or design defect claims.
-7-
1
i.
Design and Testing Issues.
2
Each of Plaintiffs’ proposed state classes includes all seven of the Bard filters at
3
issue in this case. Plaintiffs allege that each of the filters was negligently designed. Trial
4
of each of the classes will therefore include the design history and risks of each of these
5
seven filters. And these facts must be evaluated in the context of what was reasonable at
6
the time each filter was designed and marketed. See, e.g., Muller v. Synthes Corp., No.
7
99 C 1492, 2002 WL 460827, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2002) (to prove negligent design
8
under Illinois law, the plaintiff must show that the defendant deviated from the standard
9
of care that other manufactures of similar products followed at the time the relevant
10
product was designed). In at least some of the states, proof of negligent design requires
11
consideration of safer alternatives or the state of the art at the time the filter was designed
12
or first sold.8 See, e.g., A.R.S. 12-683(1) (a defendant shall not be liable in a product
13
liability case if “[t]he defect in the product is alleged to result from inadequate design or
14
fabrication, and if the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of
15
manufacturing, inspecting, testing and labeling the product conformed with the state of
16
the art at the time the product was first sold by the defendant.”). Thus, the Court and the
17
jury will need to consider the design of each filter.
18
The seven Bard IVC filters were introduced to the market in the following years:
19
Recovery® in 2002 for permanent use and 2003 for retrievable use; G2® in 2005 for
20
permanent use and 2008 for retrievable use; G2® Express and G2®X in 2008; Eclipse®
21
in 2010; Meridian® in 2011; and Denali® in 2013. Doc. 74-4. Each of these filters was
22
a variation of earlier generations, but with several changes. Id. For example, the G2®
23
filter had the following changes from the Recovery® filter: (1) increased hook wire
24
diameter of approximately 24%; (2) increased nominal leg span of 25%; (3) increased
25
nominal arm length of approximately 50%; (4) curved instead of straight arm tips; and
26
(5) increased radius of curvature on arms at the sleeve. Doc. 74-4 at 8.
27
8
28
For ease of explanation, the Court will discuss the required proof and affirmative
defenses using only one or two jurisdictions as examples. Defendants provide a chart of
the law in each of the relevant states. See Doc. 72-8.
-8-
1
The G2® Express and G2®X filters had the following changes from earlier
2
versions: (1) modification of the filter tip to include a snare tip to allow retrievability
3
with commercially available snares; (2) the snarable tip was electropolished instead of
4
having a machine polished straight tip with no snare; and (3) the filter height was greater
5
with the addition of a snarable tip. Id. at 13.
6
The Eclipse® filter was introduced with these changes over prior versions: the
7
nitinol wire used to form the arms and legs was electropolished prior to filter assembly
8
and annealing. Id. at 14. The Meridian® filter added to alternating filter arms (1) a
9
“shoulder anchor” made out of titanium alloy tube with an in-line anchor tip to improve
10
caudal movement/migration resistance, and (2) a “wrist anchor” made out of titanium
11
alloy tube with an offset anchor tip to improve caudal movement/migration resistance.
12
Id. at 15.
13
The Denali® filter included these modifications:
(1) fabricated differently;
14
(2) different leg spans; (3) different arm spans; (4) different unconstrained height;
15
(5) staggered leg lengths; (6) four instead of six legs with cranial anchors; (7) addition of
16
caudal anchors to two filter legs; (8) addition of penetration limiter on each filter leg; and
17
(9) electropolished following filter assembly. Id. at 17.
18
The various generations of Bard filters also underwent separate testing.
19
example, the Recovery® filter underwent bench testing of clot trapping efficiency,
20
migration resistance, hook strength, radial strength, weld integrity, creep study of filter
21
hooks, EnduraTEC fatigue testing, simulated use, rotating-beam corrosion fatigue testing,
22
optimum welding parameters, wire tensile test, and finite element analyses. Id. at 4. The
23
Recovery® filter also underwent the following animal studies: in-vivo evaluation for
24
permanent indication and early removal, and in-vivo evaluation for long-term removal
25
indication.
26
investigated the safety and effectiveness of the Recovery® filter in approximately 60
27
patients. Id. Other tests were performed for other generations of filters. See Doc. 74-4.
Id. at 5.
For
A clinical study was conducted by Dr. Murray Asch, who
28
-9-
1
Plaintiffs allege that structural and manufacturing differences between the filters
2
are insignificant and that tests on the various filters were deficient. They note that the
3
filters were approved by the FDA through the § 510(k) clearance process, not the FDA’s
4
more onerous pre-market approval process for new devices. See 21 C.F.R. § 807.87,
5
807.92, 807.93 (2012). But even in the face of these arguments, there are still design,
6
manufacturing, and testing differences between the various generations of Bard filters
7
that would need to be addressed at trial. Whether the manufacturing changes and product
8
tests were sufficient to ensure the safety of the filters is hotly contested and would be
9
decided by the trier of fact, but only in the context of seven generations of filters with
10
differing specifications and testing histories. And for states that require a comparison to
11
the state of the art, the design and manufacturing standards for blood filters generally
12
would also have to be considered for each year.
13
ii.
Failure to Warn Issues.
14
The Recovery® filter was approved by the FDA for permanent use in November
15
2002 and for retrievable use in July 2003. Doc. 74-4 at 5. Bard’s “instructions for use”
16
included the following warnings:
17
Migration of the filter. This may be caused by placement in oversized
vena cava diameters exceeding 28 mm or if proper anchoring techniques
are not utilized.
18
19
Perforation of the vena cava wall. This may occur if improper insertion
technique is not utilized.
20
21
Caval occlusion. The probability of this occurring should be weighed
against the inherent risk/benefit ratio for a patient who is experiencing
pulmonary embolism, or who is likely to do so without intervention.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id.
In October 2003, the warnings were revised to include this language:
Filter fracture is a known complication of vena cava filters. There have
been reports of embolization of vena cava filter fragments resulting in
retrieval of the fragment using endovascular and/or surgical techniques.
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
Most cases of filter fracture, however, have been reported without any
adverse clinical sequelae.
Movement or migration of the filter is a known complication of vena cava
filters. This may be caused by placement in IVCs with diameters
exceeding the appropriate labeled dimensions specified in the IFU.
Migration of filters to the heart or lungs have been reported in association
with improper deployment, deployment into clots and/or dislodgment due
to large clot burdens.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Procedures requiring percutaneous interventional techniques should not be
attempted by physicians unfamiliar with the possible complications.
Complications may occur at any time during or after the procedure.
Possible complications include, but are not limited to, the following:
Movement or migration of the filter is a known complication of vena cava
filters. . . . Filter fracture is a known complication of vena cava filters. . . .
Perforation or other acute or chronic damage of the IVCwall; Acute or
recurrent pulmonary embolism. This has been reported despite filter usage.
It is not known if thrombi passed through the filter, or originated from
superior or collateral vessels; Caval thrombosis/occlusion; Extravasation of
contrast material at time of venacavogram; Air embolism; Hematoma or
nerve injury at the puncture site or subsequent retrieval site; Hemorrhage;
Restriction of blood flow; Occlusion of small vessels; Distal embolization;
Infection; Intimal tear; Stenosis at implant site. All these above
complications have been associated with serious adverse events such as
medical intervention and/or death. The risk/benefit ratio of any of these
complications should be weighed against the inherent risk/benefit ratio for a
patient who is at risk of pulmonary embolism without intervention.
20
Id. at 6-8. Bard also sent letters to doctors in December 2004 or January 2005 alerting
21
them to these revised instructions for use. Id. at 8.
22
23
24
25
26
The G2® filter was approved by the FDA for retrievable use in 2008. The
instructions for use included these warnings:
There have been reports of complications, including death, associated with
the use of vena cava filters in morbidly obese patients.
***
27
28
NOTE: It is possible that complications such as those described in the
‘Warnings, Precautions, and Potential Complications’ section of this
- 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Instructions for Use may affect the recoverability of the device and result in
the clinician’s decision to have the device remain permanently implanted.
Id. at 10.
The instructions were revised in July 2009 to include the following statement, in
bold type:
Note: Standards and guidelines developed by the Society of Interventional
Radiologists recommend that patients with filters (either permanent or
retrievable) be tracked and receive “routine follow-up” subsequent to the
placement of the device. See Reporting Standards for Inferior Vena Caval
Filter Placement and Patient Follow-Up: Supplement for Temporary and
Retrievable/Optional Filters. Millward, S., et al.: J. Vasc Interv Radiol
2005; 16:441-443; Recommend Reporting Standards for Vena Cava Filter
Placement and Patient Followup. The Participants in the Vena Caval Filter
Consensus Conference: J Vasc Inter Radiol 2003; 14:S427-S432;
Guidelines for the Use of Retrievable and Convertible Vena Cava Filters:
Report from the Society of Interventional Radiology Multidisciplinary
Consensus Conference. Kaufman, J., et al.: J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;
17:449-459.
Id. at 11.
Later versions of Bard filters at issue in this case contained additional warnings.
For example, the Meridian® filter’s 2011 warnings included this language in bold type:
FDA recommends that implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for
the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters consider removing
the filter as soon as protection from [pulmonary embolism] is no longer
needed. FDA encourages all physicians involved in treatment and followup of IVC filter recipients to consider the risks and benefits of filter
removal for each patient.
Id. at 16-17.
24
Plaintiffs contend that Bard’s warnings were inadequate and incomplete. But
25
these examples show that the trial for each class would need to assess the warnings in
26
place at a particular time for the particular filter implanted in each class member. Trial of
27
a single class representative’s claim would not suffice because the representative would
28
have received a different filter with different warnings than many members of the class.
- 12 -
1
iii.
Affirmative Defenses.
2
Class members would also be subject to affirmative defenses that turn on
3
individual factual allegations. Plaintiffs contend that affirmative defenses should not be
4
considered when determining whether individual issues will predominate, but they cite no
5
authority for this assertion in their briefing or oral argument. While it is true that the
6
mere existence of affirmative defenses “does not compel a finding that individual issues
7
predominate over common ones,” Williams v. Sinclair, 529 F.2d 1383, 1388 (9th Cir.
8
1975), such defenses cannot be ignored when making a predominance decision. “[A]
9
class cannot be certified on the premise that [the defendant] will not be entitled to litigate
10
its . . . defenses to individual claims.”
11
individualized nature of affirmative defenses requires that courts consider such defenses
12
in undertaking the predominance analysis.” See Newberg on Class Actions § 4:55 (5th
13
ed. 2017); see also S. Gensler, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary
14
at 533 (2016) (“The court must determine what impact, if any, the affirmative defenses
15
will have on the mix of common versus individualized issues[.]”); Myers v. Hertz Corp.,
16
624 F.3d 537, 551 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[T]here is no reason the district court ought to have
17
given the ‘defense’ less weight in determining whether overall class certification would
18
serve the goals of the predominance requirement. [W]hile it is well established that the
19
existence of a defense potentially implicating different class members differently does
20
not necessarily defeat class certification, it is equally well established that courts must
21
consider potential defenses in assessing the predominance requirement.”) (citations
22
omitted; emphasis in original); Valenzuela v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 15-1092-PHX-
23
DGC, 2016 WL 679095 at *14 (D. Ariz. 2016) (considering affirmative defenses in
24
predominance analysis); In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., No. CIV. A.
25
93-7074, 1995 WL 273597, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1995) (acknowledging that Rule
26
23(b)(3) certification was not appropriate in part because defendants asserted defenses
27
that differ dramatically from one plaintiff to the next).
Dukes, 564 U.S. at 367.
28
- 13 -
“The potentially
1
Defendants assert various affirmative defenses. Doc. 9 at 20-35; Doc. 72 at 27-29.
2
For example, the eleven relevant states each recognize assumption of the risk, or
3
comparative or contributory negligence, as defenses to negligence that either negate or
4
reduce a defendant’s liability. Doc. 72-8; see, e.g., Franklin v. Clemett, 382 P.3d 802,
5
807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (recognizing assumption of the risk and contributory
6
negligence as defenses under Arizona law; the presence and effect of these defenses on
7
liability must be left to the jury). Additionally, most of the jurisdictions recognize the
8
learned intermediary defense, albeit with some differences. Compare Watts v. Medicis
9
Pharm. Corp., 365 P.3d 944, 948, 949 (Ariz. 2016) (“a learned intermediary (the
10
prescribing physician) who received an adequate warning regarding a drug’s side effects
11
or proper use but unforeseeably disregarded the warning constituted an intervening,
12
superseding event that broke the chain of causation between the manufacturer and the
13
patient[,]” but the doctrine does not apply “if the manufacturer fails to provide adequate
14
warning to the learned intermediary”), and Small v. Amgen, Inc., 134 F. Supp. 3d 1358,
15
1367 (M.D. Fla. 2015) (recognizing that the learned intermediary doctrine applies to
16
claims of negligent failure to warn under Florida law, and finding that “the failure of the
17
manufacturer to provide the physician with an adequate warning is not the proximate
18
cause of a patient’s injury if the prescribing physician had independent knowledge of the
19
risk that an adequate warning should have communicated”).9
20
As a result, to decide liability, the jury would need to consider what each class
21
member and her treating physicians knew about the risks associated with the relevant
22
Bard filters and when they knew it. Plaintiffs cite evidence showing that the FDA and
23
other organizations, as well as expert medical literature, have called for monitoring of
24
patients with embedded blood filters. Doc. 54-1 at 17-19. These sources advocate timely
25
removal of IVC filters. Id. But it is likely that at least some of the class members’
26
27
28
9
Plaintiffs’ counsel contended during oral argument that “downstream” conduct
by Plaintiffs and their physicians should not impact the “upstream” tortious conduct of
Bard. But many of these affirmative defenses go to the question of liability, a plainly
“upstream” consideration. Plaintiffs offered no support for their argument that principles
of comparative and contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the learned
intermediary doctrine should not apply to their claims.
- 14 -
1
treating physicians were aware of these warnings. Indeed, some class members were
2
aware of the risks as well. For example, testimony shows that at least one named plaintiff
3
was advised to have his filter removed in 2005, but declined to do so and did not follow
4
up with any medical providers. Doc. 74-1 at 9. A former named plaintiff allegedly
5
ignored no less than five letters from her implanting physician requesting clinical follow-
6
up regarding removal of her filter. Doc. 74-2 at 16. While this individual was replaced
7
as a class representative, she serves as an example of the individual circumstances of
8
each class member that would need to be considered in assessing issues of comparative or
9
contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Moreover, evidence suggests that other
10
named plaintiffs did not follow up with their physicians after being advised to do so or to
11
have their filters removed. Doc. 74-1 at 2-8; 74-2 at 16.10
12
Plaintiffs contend that these affirmative defenses “do not undercut the case-critical
13
predominant issues of risk and need for monitoring, as many of them only apply to either
14
failure to warn (learned intermediary) or negligent design (proof of safer alternative;
15
risk/benefit analysis) claims.” Doc. 78 at 15 n.12, 18. But there are two problems with
16
this argument.
17
First, Plaintiffs’ negligence claims are based on failure to warn and negligent
18
design. Although Plaintiffs’ say in their briefing that their claims are “not so limited”
19
(Doc. 78 at 15), they identify no other basis for their negligence claims.11
20
Second, the classes cannot be certified simply because Plaintiffs allegedly face a
21
common risk and need medical monitoring. Tortious conduct by Defendants is required
22
23
24
25
10
Defendants allege various other affirmative defenses, such as judicial estoppel.
Doc. 72 at 28 & n.35 (contending that named plaintiff Barraza’s claim should be barred
by judicial estoppel – an affirmative defense unique to Barraza’s claim – because she
failed to disclose her lawsuit in her bankruptcy petition).
11
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ reply brief provides this explanation of other grounds for their
negligence claim: “Opening Br. at 7 (noting that Bard never shared with doctors or
patients their internal assessment that their filters were associated with a significant
increase in deaths compared to SNF) (citing Ex. 6 (Kessler Rep.)); and 8 (‘Bard conceded
internally that “now that we have more experience with Recovery the position of tiltresistance should probably be down played”’) (citing Ex. 8)).” Doc. 78 at 15. But both
of these examples appear to be failures to warn.
- 15 -
1
for medical monitoring claims in all the relevant jurisdictions. The fact that Plaintiffs
2
face a common risk and require medical monitoring to reduce that risk is not sufficient to
3
state a claim for relief; Plaintiffs must also show that Defendants were negligent and
4
caused Plaintiffs’ increased risk. And it is in proving negligence that individual issues
5
will proliferate. Filter-by-filter inquiries into design and manufacturing defects will be
6
required; at each step, the state of the art must be examined; failures to disclose will vary
7
from year to year and filter to filter; the knowledge possessed by each class member’s
8
physician must be established to resolve the learned intermediary defense; and each class
9
member’s knowledge of the risk and response to suggestions of removal or medical
10
monitoring will be needed to resolve defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory
11
or comparative negligence. In short, common issues will not predominate on the third
12
element of medical monitoring.
13
c.
Element Four: Increased Risk.
14
Plaintiffs contend that they will establish the fourth element – increased risk – for
15
all class members by “present[ing] common evidence, based on the medical literature and
16
expert opinion, on the common increased risks of each filter, the modest changes from
17
filter to filter, and how those modest changes do not mitigate those risks.” Doc. 78 at 19.
18
Plaintiffs cite heavily to medical literature and expert opinion concerning the heightened
19
health risks allegedly caused by all seven of the relevant Bard IVC filters.
20
21
Defendants contend that establishing increased risk will require individualized
proof for two reasons.
22
First, Defendants contend that “[u]nlike medical monitoring for toxic exposure,
23
the increased risk in the medical device context is measured against the risks from
24
exposure to a non-defective filter, rather than exposure to no filter at all.” Doc. 72 at 26.
25
Defendants cite no authority for this proposition. And even if it is true, Defendants
26
present no reason to conclude that this comparison could not be made through common
27
evidence.
28
- 16 -
1
Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs “will actually need to quantify the
2
increased risk of injury for each individual class member to be entitled to medical
3
monitoring.” Id. at 27. But Defendants cite cases concerning levels of exposure to toxic
4
substances that are common in the environment. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford,
5
71 A.3d 105, 132-33 (Md. 2013).
6
disputed – each class member is 100% exposed to the IVC filter in his or her body.
7
Plaintiffs contend that the filters create an increased risk of adverse health consequences,
8
a fact they intend to prove by common expert evidence. The Court does not find that
9
individual issues will predominate on this issue.
10
d.
This case is different. The level of exposure is not
Elements Five, Six, and Seven.
11
Defendants do not appear to dispute that Plaintiffs can show the fifth element with
12
common evidence – that a medical test exists for early detection of filter-related medical
13
problems. They do, however, contest that Plaintiffs can show by common evidence that
14
their proposed medical monitoring is necessary for all class members (element six) and
15
different from the ordinary course of treatment for those class members (element seven).
16
Cases have held that element six – the necessity of the proposed monitoring
17
scheme – raises individual issues. Plaintiffs cite no contrary authority. See In re St. Jude
18
Med., Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1122 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Every patient in the 17-state class who
19
has ever been implanted with a mechanical heart valve already requires future medical
20
monitoring as an ordinary part of his or her follow-up care. A patient who has been
21
implanted with the Silzone valve may or may not require additional monitoring, and
22
whether he or she does is an individualized inquiry depending on that patient’s medical
23
history, the condition of the patient’s heart valves at the time of implantation, the
24
patient’s risk factors for heart valve complications, the patient’s general health, the
25
patient’s personal choice, and other factors.”); Barnes v. Am. Tobacco Co., 161 F.3d 127,
26
146 (3d Cir. 1998) (“In order to state a claim for medical monitoring, each class member
27
must prove that the monitoring program he requires is ‘different from that normally
28
recommended in the absence of exposure.’ To satisfy this requirement, each plaintiff
- 17 -
1
must prove the monitoring program that is prescribed for the general public and the
2
monitoring program that would be prescribed for him.”) (citation and footnote omitted).
3
Similarly, cases have held that element seven – whether a particular plaintiff’s
4
ordinary course of treatment would include the monitoring sought in this case – presents
5
individualized issues. See Lewallen v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. C 01-20395 RMW,
6
2002 WL 31300899, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2002) (“[A]ssuming that there has been an
7
increased need for medical monitoring, each individual plaintiff would only be able to
8
recover to the extent of that increase. Whatever monitoring was expected as a[] part of
9
the anticipated course of treatment would not be recoverable, again a particularly
10
individualized inquiry.”); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Super. Court, 63 P.3d 913, 924-25
11
(Cal. 2003) (“First, determining the extent of monitoring required by each class member
12
absent exposure poses a highly individualized inquiry. . . . Second, determining whether
13
each class member requires additional monitoring due to exposure requires individual
14
litigation of numerous and substantial questions. A class member’s need for additional
15
monitoring hinges on the particular traits or characteristics of each class member.”).
16
Here, the amount of monitoring a class member would require in the normal
17
course of her treatment and illness, without the monitoring sought in this case, is an
18
individualized inquiry into the medical needs and ongoing course of treatment for each
19
class member. For example, testimony from the named plaintiffs shows that not all class
20
members may need or would benefit from the proposed monitoring. One named plaintiff
21
was told that a CT scan would not be capable of showing the filter position due to his
22
size. Doc. 74-1 at 3. Another reported that her doctor monitored her filter position in
23
August 2016 using an x-ray and concluded that the filter was fine. Id. at 4. Yet another
24
named plaintiff stated that he regularly receives chest x-rays and CT scans for health
25
complications independent of his Bard filter, while a fourth claimed that she had received
26
a CT scan of her filter in October 2016 that showed that her filter was intact. Id. at 5, 11.
27
Plaintiffs argue that CT scans are needed for class members because most doctors
28
do not follow their patients carefully and monitor the condition of their filters. Even if
- 18 -
1
that is true, can that failure be blamed on Defendants without an inquiry into whether the
2
doctor’s actions are due to the doctor’s own failings or a failure by Bard to adequately
3
advise the doctor?
4
implement a dedicated tracking protocol, monitor their patients carefully, and remove
5
IVC filters when warranted. Doc. 56 at 32. Class members under the care of such
6
diligent doctors likely could not show the need for additional tracking or that the relief
7
offered in this case would result in different monitoring than they already are receiving.
8
This further illustrates the member-by-member inquiry required for elements six and
9
seven.
Further, Plaintiffs’ motion acknowledges that some doctors
10
What is more, as Defendants’ expert notes, there are risks associated with
11
exposing individuals to CT scans due to “ionizing radiation inherent in a CT scan[.]”
12
Doc. 74-2 at 19. Whether a class member and her doctor decide that these risks are worth
13
the potential benefits of a CT scan, especially where the class member has received
14
previous scans, is an individualized question not capable of proof by common evidence.
15
e.
Choice of Law.
16
Plaintiffs emphasize that they selected states that recognize medical monitoring
17
claims. They seek certification of classes of persons with Bard filters who reside in these
18
states. But Plaintiffs have not shown that the place of residence of each class member
19
will control the law that applies to her case.
20
Choice-of-law issues are relevant to class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
21
Where “‘class certification is sought in a case based on common law claims, the question
22
of which law governs is crucial in making a class certification determination. Not only
23
must the choice-of-law issue be addressed at the class certification stage – it must be
24
tackled at the front end since it pervades every element of [Rule] 23.’” In re Welding
25
Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., 245 F.R.D. 279, 291 (N.D. Ohio 2007) (quoting In re Prempro
26
Prods. Liab. Litig., 230 F.R.D. 555, 561 (E.D. Ark. 2005)).
27
In a diversity case such as this, “the district court must apply the choice-of-law
28
rules of the state in which it sits.” Abogados v. AT&T, Inc., 223 F.3d 932, 934 (9th Cir.
- 19 -
1
2000).
2
(Second) of Conflict of Laws. See Bates v. Super. Ct., 749 P.2d 1367, 1369 (Ariz. 1988);
3
Magellan Real Estate Inv. Tr. v. Losch, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1155 (D. Ariz. 2000).
4
Under this test, the law of the state that has the most significant relationship to an issue
5
applies to that issue.
6
occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicile,
7
residence, nationality, place or incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
8
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.” Magellan,
9
109 F. Supp. 2d at 1155-56. “These contacts are to be evaluated according to their
10
Arizona follows the “most significant relationship” test of the Restatement
Factors to consider include: “(a) the place where the injury
relative importance with respect to the particular issue.” Id. at 1156.
11
Plaintiffs asserted during oral argument that medical monitoring cases always
12
apply the law of the place of residence of the plaintiff, but they provide no citation in
13
support. Even if this were true, the typical practice of medical monitoring cases does not
14
decide the choice-of-law issue in Arizona. The Court must determine the state with the
15
most significant relationship to the claim of each class member. This may be the place of
16
residence for some class members, but not for others. For example, named plaintiff
17
Flournay resides in Colorado, but his filter was implanted in Texas and his implanting
18
physician presumably practices there. Doc. 74-1 at 3. The Court must consider whether
19
Colorado, Texas, or some other state has the most significant relationship to the alleged
20
tort and the parties.
21
relationship, Texas does not recognize medical monitoring claims. Because other class
22
members, like Flournay, may have received their filters or their primary medical care in
23
states other than their current state of residence, a member-by-member inquiry would be
24
needed to decide what law governs their claims.
25
f.
If the Court determines that Texas has the most significant
Conclusion.
26
The Court concludes that individual issues would predominate if the classes were
27
certified. Individual issues would arise from several key elements of Plaintiffs’ claim:
28
(1) whether Defendants were negligent in the design of various generations of filters,
- 20 -
1
considering not only the unique characteristics of the specific filters and the tests that
2
were or were not performed, but also whether the design met the then-available state of
3
the art; (2) whether Defendants were negligent in failing to disclose risks for various
4
kinds of filters at various points in time, given what was known about the risks at the
5
time; (3) whether the learned intermediary defense applies based on what the class
6
member’s doctor knew at the time of implant; (4) whether contributory or comparative
7
negligence or assumption of risk apply based on what the class member has been told
8
about the need for monitoring or removal of the filter; (5) whether the proposed medical
9
monitoring is necessary and distinct from the ordinary course of treatment the class
10
member is receiving; and (6) what state’s law should apply to each class member’s claim.
11
Defendants note that a California state court judge previously refused to certify a
12
California medical monitoring class of persons implanted with the same Bard IVC filters,
13
for the same reason. See Doc. 72-1.
14
2.
Superiority.
15
The superiority inquiry asks whether “a class action is superior to other available
16
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
17
This requirement must be met in addition to the predominance of common issues – it is
18
not an alternative means for certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
19
predominance “and” superiority).
20
present, superiority cannot save the day. Because the Court finds that individual issues
21
will predominate, it need not address superiority.
See id. (requiring
Thus, if predominance of common issues is not
22
B.
23
Rule 23(b)(2) permits certification of a class if the requirements of Rule 23(a) are
24
satisfied and “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that
25
apply generally to the class, so that injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
26
appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
Rule 23(b)(2).
27
28
- 21 -
1
1.
Nature of the Relief Sought.
2
“Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate only where the primary
3
relief sought is declaratory or injunctive.” Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253
4
F.3d 1180, 1195 (9th Cir. 2001). “A class seeking monetary damages may be certified
5
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) where such relief is merely incidental to the primary claim for
6
injunctive relief.” Id. (citation and quotations marks omitted, alterations incorporated).
7
The parties dispute whether the relief sought by Plaintiffs should be considered injunctive
8
or monetary in nature.
9
“Courts have split on whether medical monitoring relief is primarily compensatory
10
or injunctive[,]” and the Ninth Circuit has noted that “[a] request for medical monitoring
11
cannot be categorized as primarily equitable or injunctive per se.”
12
(compiling cases). Rather, the Court must examine “the precise relief sought and the
13
circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 1196.
Id. at 1195-96
14
In Zinser, the Ninth Circuit found that the complaint sought primarily monetary
15
relief and the proposed class therefore could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). Id.
16
The Ninth Circuit explained:
17
21
The amended class action complaint here seeks the establishment of a
reserve fund for past and future damages, compensation for future medical
treatment, plus other compensatory and punitive damages. Although the
complaint also seeks “full and proper research into alternative
methodologies for remedying the condition of each patient/class member,”
this injunctive relief is merely incidental to the primary claim for money
damages.
22
Id. at 1196. Defendants contend that Zinser controls this case, but the relief sought in this
23
case is distinguishable from the relief sought in Zinser. Plaintiffs do not seek direct
24
compensatory or punitive damages, nor do they seek compensation for medical treatment.
25
While Zinser does not control the outcome in this case, many other courts have
26
considered whether requests for medical monitoring constitute primarily injunctive or
27
monetary relief. An oft-cited decision from the Southern District of Ohio provides a
28
helpful discussion of the issue:
18
19
20
- 22 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Relief in the form of medical monitoring may be by a number of means.
First, a court may simply order a defendant to pay a plaintiff a certain sum
of money. The plaintiff may or may not choose to use that money to have
his medical condition monitored. Second, a court may order the defendants
to pay the plaintiffs’ medical expenses directly so that a plaintiff may be
monitored by the physician of his choice. Neither of these forms of relief
constitute injunctive relief as required by rule 23(b)(2).
However, a court may also establish an elaborate medical monitoring
program of its own, managed by court-appointed court-supervised trustees,
pursuant to which a plaintiff is monitored by particular physicians and the
medical data produced utilized for group studies. In this situation, a
defendant, of course, would finance the program as well as being required
by the court to address issues as they develop during program
administration. Under these circumstances, the relief constitutes injunctive
relief as required by rule 23(b)(2).
Day v. NLO, Inc., 144 F.R.D. 330, 335-36 (S.D. Ohio 1992), vacated in part on other
grounds sub nom. In re NLO, Inc., 5 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 1993). Citing Day, the District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania further elaborates on the distinction:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The dispositive factor that must be assessed to determine whether a medical
monitoring claim can be certified as a Rule 23(b)(2) class is [] what type of
relief do plaintiffs actually seek. If plaintiffs seek relief that is a disguised
request for compensatory damages, then the medical monitoring claim can
only be characterized as a claim for monetary damages. In contrast, if
plaintiffs seek the establishment of a court-supervised medical monitoring
program through which the class members will receive periodic
examinations, then plaintiffs’ medical monitoring claim can be properly
characterized as claim seeking injunctive relief.
Arch v. Am. Tobacco Co., 175 F.R.D. 469, 483 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
23
Other courts considering the nature of medical monitoring relief have reached
24
various conclusions. Some courts have found requested relief to be injunctive in nature.
25
See, e.g., Donovan, 268 F.R.D. at 22 (finding a request for medical monitoring to be a
26
request for injunctive relief where “the plaintiffs seek a structured program, monitored by
27
and staffed with medical personnel, in which class members will receive regular medical
28
screenings . . . [and] would have to hire medical and administrative personnel, purchase
- 23 -
1
equipment, and establish procedures for intake, informed consent, record keeping, and so
2
on”); In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., 245 F.R.D. at 290 (finding injunctive relief
3
where the plaintiffs sought a court-supervised medical monitoring program rather than an
4
order that defendants pay their medical expenses directly so that they may be monitored
5
by the physician of their choice, or an order that defendants pay a certain sum of money
6
that plaintiffs may or may not choose to use to monitor their medical conditions); Cook v.
7
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 181 F.R.D. 473, 479 (D. Colo. 1998) (finding a request for
8
“diagnostic testing and medical screening necessary to facilitate the early detection and
9
permit the early treatment of disease, rather than damages for past, present or future
10
injury,” to be a request for injunctive relief); Barnes, 989 F. Supp. at 666 (finding it
11
“obvious that the use of a medical monitoring fund to administer medical surveillance
12
payments is an exercise of the Court’s equitable powers”); Craft v. Vanderbilt Univ., 174
13
F.R.D. 396, 406 (M.D. Tenn. 1996) (finding medical monitoring of exposed plaintiffs to
14
be injunctive relief); Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 845 F. Supp. 705, 713 (D. Ariz.
15
1993) (finding relief to be injunctive where it included the implementation of a “court-
16
supervised program requiring ongoing, elaborate medical monitoring”).
17
Other courts have found requests for medical monitoring to be monetary in nature.
18
See, e.g., Lewallen, 2002 WL 31300899, at *3 (finding primarily monetary relief where
19
the plaintiffs sought establishment of a medical monitoring fund, rather than the
20
establishment of a medical monitoring program, as well as compensatory and punitive
21
damages); Dhamer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 183 F.R.D. 520, 529 (N.D. Ill. 1998)
22
(finding request for funding of treatment and monitoring to be monetary relief); Arch,
23
175 F.R.D. at 483 (finding plaintiffs’ claim “identical to a traditional damage claim”
24
because the relief includes “not only a fund for the detection of disease but also a fund for
25
its treatment” and the “request for actual medical monitoring examinations is but a small
26
portion of the relief requested”); O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 359, 379
27
(C.D. Cal. 1997) (finding relief primarily monetary where the plaintiffs sought
28
establishment of a fund to pay for medical monitoring, including treatment, as well as
- 24 -
1
other compensatory and punitive damages); Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp. Inc., 846 F.
2
Supp. 1400, 1404 (W.D. Mo. 1994) (finding a request for the “future costs of medical
3
monitoring” to be nothing more than a request for “compensation for necessary medical
4
expenses reasonably anticipated to be incurred in the future” because absent “anything
5
more than an exchange of money, as requested by plaintiffs, these damages cannot be
6
injunctive in nature”).
7
Several trends emerge from these cases. First, a request for medical monitoring
8
coupled with a request for compensatory or punitive damages is likely to be considered
9
primarily monetary. Donovan, 268 F.R.D. at 23 (collecting cases). Second, a request for
10
a fund for the treatment of injury, as opposed to detection of injury, is likely to be
11
considered monetary. See Arch., 175 F.R.D. at 484. Third, a request for a transmission
12
of money with little supervision from the court or further engagement by the defendants
13
is likely to be considered primarily monetary. See Duncan v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 203
14
F.R.D. 601, 611 (W.D. Wash. 2001). Ultimately, whether requested relief is injunctive or
15
monetary in nature should be resolved by close scrutiny of the specific relief sought and
16
the circumstances of the case.
17
Plaintiffs’ amended complaint seeks an order requiring Defendants “to establish a
18
Court-supervised and Court-administered trust fund, in an amount to be determined, to
19
pay for the medical monitoring protocol for all Class members[.]” Doc. 57-2 at 45,
20
¶ 228. During oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel explained that a class member who
21
elected to pursue this monitoring would see her own treating physician or another
22
physician of her choice to obtain a prescription for a CT scan. The fund would pay for
23
the doctor visit. If the physician prescribed the CT scan, the class member would obtain
24
the scan from a provider of her choice. The fund would pay for the scan. The scan
25
would be read at one of several already-existing centers around the country that
26
specialize in reading CT scans. The fund would pay the center for review of the scan and
27
issuance of a report. Defendants and the Court would not set up a structured medical
28
monitoring program staffed by medical personnel hired for that purpose, as in some
- 25 -
1
medical monitoring cases. Nor would data generated by the monitoring be used for
2
research purposes or to benefit the class; it would be maintained only for fund
3
administrative purposes.
4
Although this proposed program is less clearly monetary than cases where
5
plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages in addition to monitoring, the Court
6
concludes that the relief sought primarily constitutes monetary rather than injunctive
7
relief. Under Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy, Defendants would do nothing more than pay
8
money. The money would be used to pay for class members to see their own physicians,
9
receive a scan from a CT provider of their choice, and receive a report on the scan from a
10
designated reviewing radiologist. The Court has difficulty distinguishing this remedy
11
from a simple claim for money damages that a plaintiff will use to pay for a doctor visit,
12
a CT scan, and review of the scan. True, pure monetary recoveries generally do not come
13
with limitations on use of the funds – the plaintiff can just as readily buy a new sofa as a
14
doctor’s visit. But does that single distinction – that the funds in this case can be used
15
only for a doctor visit, a scan, and review of the scan – transform this from monetary to
16
injunctive relief? The Court does not think so.
17
Injunctions require defendants to take some action or refrain from acting. Black’s
18
Law Dictionary defines an injunction as “[a] court order commanding or preventing an
19
action.” Injunction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). It is “a judicial process or
20
mandate operating in personam by which, upon certain established principles of equity, a
21
party is required to do or refrain from doing a particular thing.” Id.
22
“Damages,” by contrast, are defined as “[m]oney claimed by, or ordered to be paid
23
to, a person as compensation for loss or injury.” Id. That is what Plaintiffs seek here –
24
an order that Defendants pay money to compensate them for an injury (the need for
25
medical monitoring created by Defendants’ negligence). Plaintiffs cannot transform a
26
claim for damages into injunctive relief simply by asking for an injunction that orders the
27
payment of money. As other courts have recognized, “[a]bsent anything more than an
28
exchange of money, as requested by plaintiffs, these damages cannot be injunctive in
- 26 -
1
nature.” Thomas, 846 F. Supp. 2d at 1404; see also Werlein v. United States, 746 F.
2
Supp. 887, 895 (D. Minn. 1990), vacated in part on other grounds, 793 F. Supp. 898 (D.
3
Minn. 1992) (“Plaintiffs propose that defendants be forced to pay a lump sum of cash into
4
a fund, and that persons eligible for medical monitoring use that pot of cash to obtain
5
reimbursement costs incurred as the result of medical screening examinations. Payment
6
of cash by one party to reimburse other parties for costs incurred is not injunctive
7
relief.”).
8
9
Nor can Plaintiffs bring their claim within Rule 23(b)(2) simply by crafting it in
way that looks like equitable relief.
Rule 23(b)(2) “does not speak of ‘equitable’
10
remedies generally but of injunctions and declaratory judgments.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
11
v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 365 (2011). The relief must be injunctive to come within the
12
rule, and the Court cannot conclude that a remedy requiring Defendants to do nothing
13
more than write a check can properly be viewed as an injunction.
14
2.
Cohesiveness.
15
Defendants argue that Rule 23(b)(2) contains a “cohesiveness” requirement.
16
Doc. 72 at 19. Plaintiffs acknowledge this requirement, but appear to disagree on its
17
content. Doc. 54-1 at 25. A cohesiveness requirement has been widely applied by other
18
circuits and by district courts within the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit has yet to
19
speak unequivocally regarding it.
20
The Third Circuit has explained that while Rule 23(b)(2) class actions “have no
21
predominance or superiority requirements, it is well established that the class claims must
22
be cohesive.” Barnes, 161 F.3d at 143. “This is so because in a (b)(2) action, unnamed
23
members are bound by the action without the opportunity to opt out.” Id. at 142-43;
24
accord Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 655 F.3d 255, 264 (3d Cir. 2011). Thus, a district
25
court “has the discretion to deny certification in Rule 23(b)(2) cases in the presence of
26
disparate factual circumstances.” Barnes, 161 F.3d at 143 (citation and quotation marks
27
omitted).
28
- 27 -
1
In addition to the Third Circuit in Barnes, at least five circuits have found a
2
cohesiveness requirement in Rule 23(b)(2). Some find the requirement in the text of the
3
rule, but all view cohesiveness as similar to a predominance test, asking whether
4
significant individual issues are present in the proposed class. See In re St. Jude Med.,
5
425 F.3d at 1121-22 (“Although Rule 23(b)(2) contains no predominance or superiority
6
requirements, class claims thereunder still must be cohesive.”); In re Monumental Life
7
Ins. Co., 365 F.3d at 415 (Rule 23(b)(2) “presumes a class best described as a
8
homogenous and cohesive group with few conflicting interests among its members”)
9
(citation and quotation marks omitted)); Lemon v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 216
10
F.3d 577, 580 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 23(b)(2) operates under the presumption that the
11
interests of the class members are cohesive and homogeneous such that the case will not
12
depend on adjudication of facts particular to any subset of the class nor require a remedy
13
that differentiates materially among class members.”); Romberio v. Unumprovident
14
Corp., 385 F. App’x 423, 433 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 23(b)(2) classes must be cohesive.
15
. . . Thus, the court must ensure that significant individual issues do not pervade the
16
entire action because it would be unjust to bind absent class members to a negative
17
decision where the class representative’s claims present different individual issues than
18
the claims of the absent members present.”) (emphasis in original); Shook v. Bd. of Cty.
19
Comm’rs of Cty. of El Paso, 543 F.3d 597, 604 (10th Cir. 2008) (the proposed class does
20
not satisfy the cohesiveness requirement of Rule 23(b)(2) “if redressing the class
21
members’ injuries requires time-consuming inquiry into individual circumstances or
22
characteristics of class members or groups of class members”); see also 1 McLaughlin on
23
Class Actions § 5:19 (13th ed. 2016) (“Courts addressing attempts to certify Rule
24
23(b)(2) medical monitoring classes have also analyzed whether ‘individual issues exist
25
among class members that would destroy the ‘cohesive nature’ of the class claims,’ a
26
requirement for certification of any (b)(2) class.
27
28
- 28 -
A (b)(2) class must have more
1
cohesiveness than a (b)(3) class because in a (b)(2) action, unnamed members are bound
2
by the action without notice or the opportunity to opt out.”).12
3
District courts in the Ninth Circuit have also applied a cohesiveness requirement to
4
Rule 23(b)(2) class certification motions. See Connelly v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co.,
5
LLC, 294 F.R.D. 574, 579 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (“Although Rule 23(b)(2) classes need not
6
meet the predominance and superiority requirements, ‘it is well established that the class
7
claims must be cohesive.’”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Fosmire v.
8
Progressive Max Ins. Co., 277 F.R.D. 625, 635-36 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (“Because . . . the
9
individual issues contained within this proposed multistate class action overrun the
10
common issues, the cohesiveness requirement for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
11
is not met here.”); Grayson v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 09-CV-1353 MMA WMC, 2011 WL
12
2414378, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 10, 2011) (recognizing that “[c]ourts have held that class
13
claims under Rule 23(b)(2) must be cohesive” and opining as to the meaning of this
14
requirement); Sweet v. Pfizer, 232 F.R.D. 360, 374 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“Additionally,
15
courts have held that even though Rule 23(b)(2), unlike Rule 23(b)(3), does not
16
specifically contain predominance and superiority requirements, a class under Rule
17
23(b)(2) must not be overrun with individual issues.”); Lewallen, 2002 WL 31300899, at
18
*3 (“Additionally, to be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), the class claims must be cohesive.
19
Even though the rule does not contain a predominance and superiority requirement, the
20
requisite cohesiveness is lacking where individual issues predominate.”); but see
21
O’Connor, 197 F.R.D. at 411-12 (“Although common issues must predominate for class
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
In Shook, the Tenth Circuit found the cohesiveness requirement in Rule 23(b)(2)
itself: “By its terms, then, Rule 23(b)(2) imposes two independent but related
requirements. In the first place, the defendants’ actions or inactions must be based on
grounds generally applicable to all class members. The second requirement is more
restrictive, and it is on this aspect of the Rule that we affirm the district court’s ruling.
The latter half of Rule 23(b)(2) requires that final injunctive relief be appropriate for the
class as a whole. The rule therefore authorizes an inquiry into the relationship between
the class, its injuries, and the relief sought, and we have interpreted the rule to require
that a class must be ‘amenable to uniform group remedies.’ Put differently, Rule 23(b)(2)
demands a certain cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries, the
absence of which can preclude certification.” 543 F.3d at 604 (citation omitted; emphasis
in original).
- 29 -
1
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), no such requirement exists under 23(b)(2).
2
sufficient if class members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable
3
to the class as a whole. Accordingly, for purposes of Rule 23(b)(2) certification, a class
4
is cohesive if plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23(a).”) (citation omitted); Mad
5
Rhino, Inc. v. Best Buy Co., No. CV 03-5604 GPS AJWX, 2008 WL 8760854, at *6-7
6
(C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2008) (noting a lack of clarity as to the Ninth Circuit’s position on
7
cohesiveness).
It is
8
The Ninth Circuit has not clearly determined whether Rule 23(b)(2) includes a
9
cohesiveness requirement. Plaintiffs cite the Walters case, which addressed a class action
10
alleging that nationwide administrative procedures used by the INS violated the class
11
members’ procedural due process rights.
12
injunction requiring the INS to revise their procedures and forms, engage in a notice
13
campaign, and reopen proceedings for class members who had been injured by the INS
14
policy. Id. at 1037. Upholding the district court’s certification of the class under Rule
15
23(b)(2), the Ninth Circuit explained:
16
The class sought an
We note that with respect to 23(b)(2) in particular, the government’s
dogged focus on the factual differences among the class members appears
to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule. Although
common issues must predominate for class certification under Rule
23(b)(3), no such requirement exists under 23(b)(2). It is sufficient if class
members complain of a pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the
class as a whole.
17
18
19
20
21
145 F.3d at 1036.
Id.
22
Plaintiffs rely on this language to support their version of cohesiveness – a
23
“uniformity of both the defendant’s actions toward the class and the injunctive relief
24
applicable to the class.” Doc. 54-1 at 25 (citation omitted). But as the discussion above
25
demonstrates, this case fails even under this definition of cohesiveness. Defendants have
26
not engaged in uniform action toward all class members; they have produced different
27
filters at different times and accompanied them with different warnings. The claims in
28
Walters were different. All class members asserted the same claim based on the same
- 30 -
1
conduct by the defendant: “In this case, each class member raises the same constitutional
2
question: whether the nationwide procedures used by INS in document fraud proceedings
3
sufficiently apprise aliens of their constitutional right to a hearing, thereby satisfying the
4
notice component of due process.” 145 F.3d at 1045.
5
For these reasons, the Court concludes that Walters is distinct from this case. The
6
Court also concludes that given the nature of the claim at issue in Walters, the brief
7
discussion in that case cannot be viewed as a rejection of the cohesiveness requirement
8
recognized by at least six other circuits and numerous district court cases in this circuit.
9
The Supreme Court in Dukes provided additional helpful clarification of Rule
10
23(b)(2). Dukes made clear that Rule 23(b)(2) class certification “applies only when a
11
single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the
12
class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would
13
be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgement against the defendant” or
14
“when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary
15
damages.” 564 U.S. at 360-61 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court found that
16
“[t]he key to the (b)(2) class is the indivisible nature of the injunctive or declaratory
17
remedy warranted – the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined or declared
18
unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.” Id. at 360 (quotation
19
marks and citation omitted). Thus, (b)(2) certification is proper where “the relief sought
20
must perforce affect the entire class at once.” Id. at 361-62.
21
Dukes emphasized that because Rule 23(b)(2) provides no mandatory notice or
22
opportunity to opt out, it allows certification in a much narrower set of circumstances
23
than Rule 23(b)(3), which requires notice and an opportunity to opt out for all potential
24
class members. Id. at 362. As the Supreme Court explained:
25
26
27
28
The procedural protections attending the (b)(3) class – predominance,
superiority, mandatory notice, and the right to opt out – are missing from
(b)(2) not because the Rule considers them unnecessary, but because it
considers them unnecessary to a (b)(2) class. When a class seeks an
indivisible injunction benefitting all its members at once, there is no reason
to undertake a case-specific inquiry into whether class issues predominate
- 31 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or whether class action is a superior method of adjudicating the dispute.
Predominance and superiority are self-evident.
Id. at 362-63 (emphasis in original). This language makes clear that a predominance of
common issues is indeed part of Rule 23(b)(2) classes – it is assumed, “self-evident.”
This is not because the rule requires the trial court to examine the proposed class and find
such predominance, but because the very nature of the relief available under (b)(2) –
injunctive or declaratory relief obtained in a trial of the class representative’s claim and
applicable to all members of the class – works only when common issues predominate.
As the Seventh Circuit explained: “By virtue of its requirement that the plaintiffs seek to
redress a common injury properly addressed by a class-wide injunctive or declaratory
remedy, Rule 23(b)(2) operates under the presumption that the interests of the class
members are cohesive and homogeneous such that the case will not depend on
adjudication of facts particular to any subset of the class nor require a remedy that
differentiates materially among class members.” Lemon, 216 F.3d at 580.
This condition does not exist here. Trial of the class representative’s claims will
not fairly adjudicate the claims of all class members because most of the class members
have different filters, implanted at different times, with different warnings by Defendants,
and are subject to different affirmative defenses. Stated differently, the named Plaintiffs
cannot, by trying their claims, obtain “final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief [that] is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
Whether this defect is labelled a lack of cohesion or a simple failure to come within the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), it defeats class certification.
C.
Typicality.
The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs cannot show typicality under Rule
23(a)(3). This defect prevents certification under both 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).
“The test of typicality is whether other members have the same or similar injury,
whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and
whether other class members have been injured by the same course of conduct.” Hanon
- 32 -
1
v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation marks and citation
2
omitted); accord Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). In a general
3
sense in this case, it can be said that the named Plaintiffs and class members have been
4
subjected to the same course of conduct – Bard’s production of allegedly defective filters
5
and its dissemination of allegedly inadequate warnings. But as noted above, important
6
factual distinctions separate class members from the named Plaintiffs. These differences
7
include: (1) whether Defendants were negligent in the design of the filters implanted in
8
the class members, which often will be different from filters implanted in the named
9
Plaintiff; (2) whether Defendants were negligent in failing to disclose risks for various
10
kinds of filters at the point in time when the class members received their implants, as
11
opposed to when the named Plaintiff received theirs; (3) whether the learned intermediary
12
defense applies based on what the class member’s doctor knew at the time of implant,
13
versus what the named Plaintiff’s doctor knew; (4) whether contributory or comparative
14
negligence or assumption of risk apply based on what the class member has been told
15
about the need for monitoring or removal of the filter, as compared to what the named
16
Plaintiff has been told; (5) whether the proposed medical monitoring is necessary and
17
distinct from the ordinary course of treatment the class member is receiving, as opposed
18
to what the named plaintiff is receiving; and (6) what state’s law should apply to each
19
class member’s claim as opposed to the named Plaintiff’s claim. And these all go to the
20
elements of the claims that must be proved for liability to arise.
21
Defenses also affect typicality. Hanon concluded that typicality is not satisfied,
22
and class certification should not be granted, if “there is a danger that absent class
23
members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with defenses unique to it.” Id.
24
(quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d
25
970, 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (relying on Hanon to overturn a district court’s holding that, “as
26
a general matter, individualized defenses do not defeat typicality”). As discussed above,
27
a number of affirmative defenses are likely to apply differently to the class members than
28
to the named Plaintiffs.
- 33 -
1
Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted during oral argument that, at trial, the parties could
2
introduce facts, allegations, and defenses that pertain to individual class members and not
3
to the named Plaintiffs.
4
representative nature of class actions, under which the named Plaintiff’s claim is tried and
5
binds the absent class members. See Newberg on Class Actions § 1:5 (5th ed. 2017)
6
(“Class actions are representative suits on behalf of others similarly situated. Class
7
members are not named adversary parties before the court. They are absent, unnamed
8
parties who did not initiate the action but who will be bound by any class judgment,
9
whether favorable or adverse, assuming that they have been adequately represented with
10
respect to issues that they share in common with the class representative.”). Plaintiffs’
11
proposed approach would also make the trial entirely unworkable. Evidence regarding
12
the unique issues related to hundreds of class members (or more) would overwhelm the
13
trial and make it confusing to the jury and otherwise unmanageable. This is because the
14
named Plaintiffs’ claims are not truly typical of those of all absent class members.
15
III.
Doc. 94 at 65.
But such an approach is contrary to the
Leave to Amend.
16
Plaintiffs filed their original complaint on May 5, 2016. Doc. 1. Since that date,
17
they have amended the complaint several times to substitute plaintiffs. Docs. 24, 33, 36,
18
47. On June 5, 2017 – the same date Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification –
19
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint by altering the form of the medical
20
monitoring relief sought and the definition of the class.
21
specifically, the proposed amended complaint retains the original request for a court-
22
administered fund to pay for the proposed medical monitoring program and related notice
23
campaign, but seeks to alter the content of that program. Id. at 45, ¶ 228.
See Doc. 57-2.13
More
24
The monitoring program set out in the original complaint would provide a
25
“catheter venography” by an interventional radiologist for every class member, followed
26
by a consultation with the class member’s treating physician to determine if removal of
27
13
28
The amended complaint also substitutes a former named plaintiff with plaintiff
Ana Hernandez, a move already approved by the Court, and makes several typographical
corrections. Defendants do not object to these changes. Doc. 64 at 2 n.1.
- 34 -
1
the filter is appropriate. Id. The monitoring program set out in the amended complaint
2
does not include a “catheter venography,” but instead seeks to provide an abdominal CT
3
scan to assess the condition of the Bard filter. Id.
4
With respect to the scope of the class, the original complaint defined class
5
members as those who had been implanted with a Bard IVC filter between July 25, 2003
6
and the date of filing of the complaint. Id. at 37, ¶ 206. The amended complaint would
7
remove the second limit, expanding the class to anyone who had received a Bard IVC
8
filter after July 25, 2003. Id.
9
Leave to amend may be denied if the Court finds that the “amendment would
10
cause prejudice to the opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue
11
delay.” Madeja v. Olympic Packers, LLC, 310 F.3d 628, 636 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation
12
omitted). “The party opposing amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice,”
13
futility, or one of the other reasons for denying a motion to amend. DCD Programs, 833
14
F.2d at 187.
15
Defendants object to the proposed amendment on grounds of undue delay and
16
prejudice, contending that the amendment would “fundamentally alter the relief being
17
requested and would significantly expand the scope of the proposed class.” Doc. 64 at 2,
18
5-11. The Court is not persuaded. Defendants concede that Plaintiffs’ new remedy was
19
identified in Plaintiffs’ February 3, 2017 expert report as preferable to the venography
20
proposed in the class complaint, and that their own expert was able to address this new
21
medical monitoring approach in Defendants’ expert reports.
22
Defendants contend that they were “still denied the opportunity to pursue
23
discovery from the named plaintiffs/proposed class representatives on the new remedy.”
24
Id. But it is not clear why Defendants would need to depose the named plaintiffs about
25
the suitability of the new medical monitoring relief. That issue is properly determined by
26
experts, not by the testimony of lay Plaintiffs.
27
Defendants have not identified any specific discovery they would have sought
28
from the named plaintiffs with respect to the proposed CT scans. Defendants obtained all
- 35 -
1
available medical records for the named plaintiffs and deposed them extensively about
2
their medical histories, including any scans they have had since their implants of the Bard
3
filters. Doc. 64 at 9 n.3; Doc. 71 at 6-7. Defendants suggest that they need to consider
4
taking depositions of Plaintiffs’ current treating radiologists concerning the new proposed
5
remedy, but Defendants have not explained why such depositions would be relevant or
6
necessary.
7
Defendants argue briefly that they are prejudiced by the change in class definition.
8
But the change does not alter the substance of the class, but only extends the cut-off date
9
from the filing of the class complaint to the date of class notice, a likely extension of 18
10
months or so if the class is certified. Defendants do not explain how this change affects
11
“the named plaintiffs’ ability to serve as class representatives under Rule 23[,]” what
12
additional discovery they would have conducted with such an extended class period, or
13
how they have otherwise been prejudiced. Doc. 64 at 9.
14
Defendants additionally argue that Plaintiffs do not offer any valid reason for
15
their delay in seeking to amend the class definition and remedy in their complaint. The
16
Ninth Circuit has made clear, however, that “[d]elay alone does not provide sufficient
17
grounds for denying leave to amend.” Hurn v. Ret. Fund Tr. of Plumbing, Heating &
18
Piping Indus. of S. Cal., 648 F.2d 1252, 1254 (9th Cir. 1981). “Where there is lack of
19
prejudice to the opposing party and the amended complaint is obviously not frivolous, or
20
made as a dilatory maneuver in bad faith, it is an abuse of discretion to deny such a
21
motion.” Id. (citation omitted).
22
The Court concludes that Defendants have not shown prejudice or bad faith.
23
Plaintiffs clearly should have been more diligent and sought to amend once they knew
24
that their expert recommended a remedy different than the remedy pleaded in their
25
complaint. But Plaintiffs did disclose their proposed new remedy in expert reports
26
months ago, Defendants’ experts were able to respond to the new remedy, and the experts
27
were deposed on the new remedy. The motion to amend will be granted.
28
- 36 -
1
IV.
Motion to Exclude.
2
Defendants ask the Court to preclude Plaintiffs from relying on two papers: (1) a
3
“white paper” titled Background White Paper from a Medical Monitoring Program
4
Administrator: IVC Retrievable Filter Medical Monitoring Program Design, authored by
5
Garretson Resolution Group (specifically, Candace Young and Amy Gernon) (“the
6
“White Paper”); and (2) a supporting expert report titled Estimated Range Number of
7
People with Bard IVC Filters, authored by Dennis Tolley (the “Tolley Report”).
8
Defendants also ask the Court to exclude any testimony or opinions of Plaintiffs’ experts
9
that rely on the White Paper or the Tolley Report. Doc. 68 at 2. Defendants contend that
10
the White Paper and Tolley Report (collectively, the “Papers”) are expert reports that
11
were not timely disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Id.
12
The Court’s case management order required that expert disclosures related to
13
class certification be made by January 13, 2017. Doc. 22 at 1. Rebuttal expert reports
14
were due by March 24, 2017. Id. at 1-2.
15
Plaintiffs did not disclose the Papers or the identity of their authors by these
16
deadlines.
17
Plaintiffs’ other experts on May 9, 2017, well after the deadlines for expert disclosures
18
had passed. Doc. 68 at 2. Plaintiffs argue that they did not violate Rule 26 because the
19
Papers are not expert reports, but rather are counsel-generated reports intended to be used
20
solely for background information. The Court does not agree.
Defendants first learned of the Papers during the deposition of one of
21
Expert testimony is based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized
22
knowledge[.]” Fed. R. Evid. 702(a). The White Paper sets forth such testimony. It is a
23
compilation of information and recommendations from persons who hold themselves out
24
as experts in creating and administering medical monitoring programs. The authors say it
25
is “based on our experience in this area,” and include a description of their specialized
26
qualifications. Doc. 68-1 at 2, 11. The Tolley report also sets forth expert opinions. Dr.
27
Tolley begins his report with a statement of his specialized qualifications, and then
28
provides “estimates” of the class size based on his expertise. Id. at 12.
- 37 -
1
Plaintiffs argue that the Papers rely on public information, public cases, and
2
information from Defendants, but such reliance does not change the fact that their authors
3
are experts within the meaning of Rule 702 providing their compilations and evaluations
4
of that information. The Papers clearly contain expert evidence that should have been
5
disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2).
6
A party that fails to provide information required by Rule 26(a) or (e) “is not
7
allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing,
8
or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
37(c)(1). Plaintiffs do not address the “substantially justified” prong of the Rule 37
10
standard. Instead, they argue that any failure to disclose was harmless.
11
Plaintiffs contend that “Bard’s own sales data, along with numerous documents
12
reflecting sales of thousands of Bard’s filters during the class period, readily establish the
13
minimal numerosity requirement.” Doc. 76 at 8 . But whether other evidence exists to
14
support the numerosity requirement for class certification is not the issue. Plaintiffs must
15
show that Defendants will not be prejudiced by their failure to disclose the Papers. See R
16
& R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012). They have not
17
done so. The Papers include expert opinions bearing directly on class certification, and
18
Plaintiffs cite them several times in the briefing on class certification. Because the
19
Papers were not timely disclosed under the Court’s case management order, Defendants
20
were denied the opportunity to depose the authors, assess their qualifications, or provide
21
rebuttal expert reports.
22
Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants first received the Papers on May 9, 2017,
23
and then again on May 16, 2017, but failed to ask more than a few questions about them
24
at the expert depositions. But Defendants had no opportunity to depose the authors of the
25
Papers, and questioning experts in other fields who read the Papers is no substitute. Nor
26
do Plaintiffs dispute that Defendants had no chance to produce rebuttal expert reports.
27
28
- 38 -
1
Because Plaintiffs have not shown that their failure to disclose the Papers was
2
substantially justified or harmless, they cannot rely on the Papers in their motion for class
3
certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).14
4
IT IS ORDERED:
5
1.
Plaintiffs’ motion to certify (Doc. 54) is denied.
6
2.
Plaintiffs’ motion to amend (Doc. 57) is granted. The Clerk is directed to
7
accept for filing document lodged as Doc. 58 in this case.
8
3.
Defendants’ motion to exclude (Doc. 68) is granted.
9
4.
The Court will hold a telephone conference with counsel on
10
September 29, 2017 at 1:00 p.m., to discuss future proceedings in this
11
case.
12
counsel for all parties and the Court. If a dial-in number is used, the dial-in
13
information shall be provided to the Court and all parties no later than
14
September 28, 2017 at 4:00 PM.
15
Counsel for Plaintiffs shall initiate a conference call to include
Dated this 11th day of September, 2017.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
14
28
Defendants ask the Court to strike the testimony or opinions of two of Plaintiffs’
experts – Drs. Hertz and Bates – that rely on the Papers, but do not identify any testimony
or opinions that meets this description.
- 39 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?