Boston Scientific Corporation et al v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Filing 516

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: 1. Boston Scientific's motion for leave to file a reply brief (D.I. 500 ) is GRANTED; 2. Boston Scientific's objections (D.I. 486 ) to the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Magistrate Judge (D.I. 460 , 461 ) are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon on 11/16/2018. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

C.A. NO. 16-275-JFB-SRF

v.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
CORPORATION,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant/CounterClaimant.
_________________
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES PVT, INC.,
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC,
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
CORPORATION,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
SADRA MEDICAL, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the objections, D.I. 468, filed by plaintiff Boston
Scientific SciMed, Inc. (“Boston”) to the Memorandum Opinion and Order, (D.I. 460 and
D.I. 461) denying Boston’s request to amend its complaint by adding Edwards LLC as a
defendant, D.I. 442.
The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, noting that “Boston Scientific's proposed
amended complaint satisfies the lenient standard of Rule 15(a), but does not pass muster
under the more stringent good cause standard of Rule 16(b).” (D.I. 460, Memorandum
Opinion at 10).

Boston Scientific objects, contending that defendant Edwards

Lifesciences PVT, Inc., (“Edwards”) will suffer no prejudice. Alternatively, it asks the
Court to consolidate the case with an action filed against Edwards in October 2018. (D.I.
474) Boston Scientific also moves for leave to submit a reply brief, D.I. 500, and that
motion will be granted. The Court has considered Boston Scientific’s reply.
The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on
magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters are
governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B). Gomez
v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
The district judge must consider such objections and “modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A Magistrate
Judge’s order is contrary to law when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or
misapplied the applicable law. See Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).
The Court reviews findings of fact for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Id.; see
also Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992) (“the phrase ‘contrary to
law’ indicates plenary review as to matters of law”).
The Court has conducted an appropriate review and finds no errors of fact or law.
The Court has carefully reviewed the recitation of facts as set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum Opinion See D.I. 460 at 2-3. The Court agrees with the factual
analysis of the Magistrate Judge and adopts her summary of the facts herein in their
entirety. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings are fully supported by
the record. The Court also finds the Magistrate Judge accurately stated the law. The
Court has considered Boston Scientific’s arguments and finds them lacking in merit.

2

Further, the Magistrate Judge’s analysis makes sense—it is late in the game to
amend pleadings.
consolidate.

Also, the Court has since denied Boston Scientific’s motion to

(D.I. 471, Motion to Consolidate; D.I. 498, Memorandum Order).

Accordingly, the Court finds Edwards’s objections should be overruled.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Boston Scientific’s motion for leave to file a reply brief (D.I. 500) is granted.

2.

Boston Scientific’s objections (D.I. 468) to the Memorandum Opinion and

Order of the Magistrate Judge (D.I. 460 and D.I. 461) are overruled.
Dated this 16th day of November, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

3