Carrigan et al v. K2M Inc.
Filing
62
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Plaintiffs Randal W. Carrigan and Sherry Carrigan's Second Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and Application to Take the Deposition of Mike Barrus Out of Time 51 ; Plaintiffs' Motion for a S ixty Day Extension of Time on All Scheduling Order Deadlines to Allow a Ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Document Number 51) and Allow Further Testing and Examination of the Subject Product and Allow Plaintiffs' Experts to Supplement Their Rule 26 Expert Reports 58 ; and Defendant K2M, Inc.'s Emergency Motion to Compel K2M Hardware for Non-Destructive Inspection 60 are ALLOWED IN PART. See written order entered by Judge Cudmore on 5/10/2011. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 10 May, 2011 03:29:59 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
RANDAL W. CARRIGAN and
SHERRY CARRIGAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
K2M, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 09-CV-3149
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Randal W. Carrigan
and Sherry Carrigan’s (collectively Carrigans) Second Amended Motion to
Compel Discovery and Application to Take the Deposition of Mike Barrus
Out of Time (d/e 51) (Motion to Compel); Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Sixty Day
Extension of Time on All Scheduling Order Deadlines to Allow a Ruling on
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Document Number 51) and Allow Further
Testing and Examination of the Subject Product and Allow Plaintiffs’
Experts to Supplement Their Rule 26 Expert Reports (d/e 58) (Motion for
Extension) (collectively Carrigan Motions); and Defendant K2M, Inc.’s
(K2M) Emergency Motion to Compel K2M Hardware for Non-Destructive
Inspection (d/e 60) (K2M Motion). The parties have certified that they have
Page 1 of 13
attempted in good faith to resolve these matters without court action. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Carrigan Motions
and the K2M Motion are ALLOWED in part.
BACKGROUND
The Carrigans allege products liability claims against K2M arising
from screws that fractured in a Mesa Spinal System designed and
distributed by K2M that had been implanted into Randal Carrigan’s spine.
Specifically, the threads in the screws fractured. The threads on the
screws were based on the “thread form and geometry” of the screws used
in the Denali Spinal System, also designed and distributed by K2M. Motion
to Compel, Exhibit 7, Excerpt of the 510k Application to Food and Drug
Administration; Deposition of Richard Woods, at 183 (both exhibits filed
under seal at d/e 54). The Carrigans have requested documents from K2M
related to the Denali Spinal System, but K2M has objected based on
relevance and undue hardship. Motion to Compel, Exhibit 6, Defendant’s
Response to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Request to Produce. The Carrigans now ask
this Court to compel production of these documents.
The Carrigans also ask the Court to compel K2M to compel an
unredacted copy of the meeting minutes of the Board of Scientific Advisors.
K2M produced a redacted copy that redacted a portion of the minutes that
discuss the Denali Spinal System. The Carrigans want these
Page 2 of 13
minutes produced in discovery. K2M objects on the same grounds of
relevance and undue burden.
The Carrigans also ask for permission to take the deposition of
K2M employee Mike Barrus out of time. The Carrigans submitted a
interrogatory to K2M for the identity of, “Defendant’s 30(b)(6) witness
most knowledgeable regarding the specifications for manufacturing of the
subject product, including screws.” Motion to Compel, Exhibit 1,
Defendant’s Answers to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories, ¶ 17. K2M responded,
“ANSWER: Rich Woods, Senior Vice President of Engineering, K2M, Inc., .
. . .” Id. (emphasis in the original). The Carrigans then noticed Woods’
deposition under Rule 30(b)(1). Woods’ deposition was taken on
November 9, 2010. Motion to Compel, Exhibit 2, Woods Deposition, at 1.
During the deposition, Woods discussed the fact that the Mesa Spinal
System was manufactured for K2M by Hammill Manufacturing Company.
Id. at 85. Woods was asked about the number of cutting movements used
to cut the screws at issue. Woods said, “I don’t know the answer to that.”
Id. Woods then said that Mike Barrus might know. Woods stated that
Barrus, “is the engineer who designed the screw, and he has been to
Hammill more often than the rest of us have.” Id.
On January 7, 2011, the Carrigans’ counsel sent a letter to K2M’s
counsel requesting the deposition of Barrus. Motion to Compel, Exhibit 3,
Page 3 of 13
Letter from Thomas J. Steece to Donna Fernandez dated January 7, 2011.
K2M’s counsel responded by letter dated January 11, 2011. Motion to
Compel, Exhibit 4, Letter from Carmel M. Cosgrave to Thomas J. Steece,
dated January 11, 2011. K2M’s counsel did not object to the deposition as
long as it was taken in Leesburg, Virginia, where K2M’s offices are located.
On January 13, 2011, the Carrigans’ counsel told K2M’s counsel that the
Carrigans no longer wanted to take Barrus’s deposition. Motion to Compel,
Exhibit 5, Letter from Thomas J. Steece to Carmel Cosgrave dated January
7, 2011.
On January 20, 2011, K2M’s counsel renewed the request for the
deposition of Barrus. On January 21, 2011, counsel for K2M again agreed
to the deposition of Barrus, but only if: (1) the Carrigans provided a list of
topics to be covered in the deposition; (2) the Carrigans held the deposition
in Virginia; and (3) the Carrigans do not seek to recover the costs of the
deposition. The Carrigans refused the last condition. They stated that they
would seek costs if they were the prevailing party in this matter.
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Exhibit 3, Email from
Michael Velez to Donna Fernandez dated January 25, 2011. The deadline
for fact discovery passed on January 31, 2011, without the parties
resolving their dispute of the costs of the deposition. See Text Order
Page 4 of 13
entered October 7, 2010. The Carrigans now ask the Court to allow them
to take the deposition of Barrus after the deadline.
The parties have conducted two destructive tests on the Mesa Spinal
System screws at issue. The parties failed to properly complete the agreed
upon testing protocol at both of the tests. The Carrigans’ experts want to
conduct additional destructive testing. The Carrigans ask for an additional
sixty days to complete another destructive test. K2M objects on the
grounds that the Carrigans could have completed the testing before the
deadline for such testing ran on March 31, 2011.
The K2M Motion asks for an order compelling the Carrigans to allow
K2M’s expert to conduct a non-destructive inspection of the screws and
hardware from the Mesa Spinal System at issue. The screws and
hardware are currently in the possession of the Carrigans’ attorney in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. K2M’s expert wants to conduct the inspection
at the expert’s laboratory in Fairfield, Ohio. The Carrigans have stated that
they will allow the transportation of the screws and hardware to Fairfield,
Ohio, only if: (1) the Defendant or Defendant’s counsel personally transport
the screws and hardware from the Carrigans’ counsel Oklahoma City to
Fairfield and personally return them to the Carrigans’ counsel; or (2) K2M
insures the screws for $3,000,000.00 against loss during transit. K2M
would not agree to either condition. See K2M Motion, Exhibits C-J,
Page 5 of 13
Correspondence between Thomas J. Steece and Carmel M. Cosgrave.
K2M asks for an order to compel the Carrigans to produce the screws and
hardware for non-destructive inspection without these preconditions.
ANALYSIS
The Carrigan Motions raise three issues: (1) the request to compel
production of information related to the Denali Spinal System; (3) the
request to depose Mike Barrus; and (3) the request for an extension of
deadlines to conduct additional destructive testing of the screws. K2M
indicates that it has provided other discovery that the Carrigans sought in
the Motion to Compel. Those portions of the Motion to Compel are denied
as moot. The Court will address the three remaining matters as follows.
The Court will thereafter address the request for inspection of the screws
and hardware set forth in the K2M Motion.
A.
Documents Related to the Denali Spinal System
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The rule gives the district
courts broad discretion in matters relating to discovery. See Brown-Bey v.
United States, 720 F.2d 467, 470-71 (7th Cir.1983); Eggleston v. Chicago
Page 6 of 13
Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union 130, 657 F.2d 890, 902 (7th Cir.1981);
see also, Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 775
F.2d 177, 183 (7th Cir.1985) (on review, courts of appeal will only reverse a
decision of a district court relating to discovery upon a clear showing of an
abuse of discretion). “[I]f there is an objection the discovery goes beyond
material relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses, the Court would
become involved to determine whether the discovery is relevant to the
claims or defenses and, if not, whether good cause exists for authorizing it
so long as it is relevant to the subject matter of the action. The good-cause
standard warranting broader discovery is meant to be flexible.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendment.
The federal discovery rules are to be construed broadly and liberally.
Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Jeffries v. LRP Publications,
Inc., 184 F.R.D. 262, 263 (E.D .Pa. 1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1) provides that the “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any
matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party . . .,” but “[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of any
matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.” Id. The party
opposing discovery has the burden of proving that the requested discovery
should be disallowed. Etienne v. Wolverine Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656
(D. Kan. 1999); Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn
Page 7 of 13
Co., 132 F.R.D. 204, 207 (N.D. Ind. 1990); Flag Fables, Inc. v. Jean Ann’s
Country Flags and Crafts, Inc., 730 F. Supp. 1165, 1186 (D. Mass. 1989).
District Courts have broad discretion in discovery matters. Packman
v. Chicago Tribune Co., 267 F.3d 628, 646 (7th Cir., 2001). A party must be
diligent in pursuing the perceived inadequacies in discovery and the trial
court does not abuse its discretion if a party untimely seeks to compel
inadequate discovery responses. Id. at 647. However, even an untimely
filed motion to compel may still be allowed if the party demonstrates actual
and substantial prejudice resulting from the denial of discovery. Id.
Remember, we are talking discovery, not admissibility at trial.
In light of these principles, the unprivileged documents requested by
the Carrigans that relate to the Denali Spinal System should be produced,
including the unredacted minutes of the Board of Scientific Advisors
discussing the Denali Spinal System. The threads on the screws in Randal
Carrigan’s back fractured. The threads on those screws were based on the
design of the Denali Spinal System screws. Information related to the
Denali Spinal System, therefore, is relevant or is reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence. K2M may invoke the provisions of the Agreed
Protective Order (d/e 38) to limit disclosure of confidential information.
Page 8 of 13
K2M argues that the screws in the Denali Spinal System are not
relevant because the Denali and Mesa Spinal Systems have different
designs and use different materials. See Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Motion to Compel (d/e 57), Exhibit 3, Affidavit
of Rich Woods, ¶¶ 3-5. That may be true, but it is also clear that the
threads on the screws in Randal Carrigan’s back fractured, and those
threads were based on the Denali Spinal System design. The design of
the Denali Spinal System screws may lead to relevant evidence to this
case and information is discoverable. The Carrigan’s motion to compel
production of these documents is allowed. K2M is directed to produce the
requested unprivileged documents by June 11, 2011.
B.
Deposition of Mike Barrus
The Court will allow the deposition of Mike Barrus on the condition
that the Carrigans serve a proper Rule 30(b)(6) notice on K2M and the
deposition be conducted in Leesburg, Virginia. The Carrigans complain
that K2M should have disclosed Barrus initially as the person who had the
most knowledge of the Mesa Spinal System for purposes of Rule 30(b)(6).
The record does not demonstrate that K2M acted improperly in identifying
Rich Woods in answer to the Carrigans’ interrogatory. The interrogatory
asks for the person most knowledgeable about he product, including the
screws. There is no evidence that Barrus knows more that Woods knows
Page 9 of 13
about the product, the Mesa Spinal System. Woods stated in his
deposition that Barrus designed the screws, but Woods did not say that
Barrus designed the entire Mesa Spinal System. Thus, the evidence does
not indicate that the answer to the interrogatory was incorrect.
Furthermore, the Carrigans did not conduct a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of Woods. The Carrigans noticed him for an individual
discovery deposition under Rule 30(b)(1). K2M properly produced Woods
since he was the person noticed for the deposition. K2M did nothing
improper with respect to this deposition. The Court also recognizes that
the Carrigans acted indecisively, first requesting the deposition of Mike
Barrus, then withdrawing the request, then renewing the request. K2M,
understandably, was frustrated with such indecisiveness.
Nevertheless, the Carrigans ultimately requested the deposition of
Barrus before the time for fact discovery closed. K2M had no basis to
condition that deposition on the waiver of a claim for costs in the event that
the Carrigans ultimately prevails in the case. The prevailing party generally
may be entitled to certain costs associated with depositions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1920; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Because the Carrigans made a timely
request on January 20, 2011, the Court will allow the deposition. The
Carrigans are directed to serve a proper Rule 30(b)(6) notice on K2M for
Page 10 of 13
the deposition and the deposition will be conducted in Leesburg, Virginia.
The Carrigans will complete the deposition by June 30, 2011.
C.
Request for Additional Testing and Extension of Time
In light of the delay necessitated by the deposition of Barrus, the
Court will allow one additional destructive test of the Mesa Spinal System
screw as requested by the Carrigans. The parties agree that the two
previous tests were not completed properly in accordance with the agreed
protocol. The parties are given until June 30, 2011, to complete one more
test. The testing is to be done after the completion of the non-destructive
inspection requested in the K2M Motion, discussed below. The Court,
however, will not allow a sixty day extension of all deadlines. The parties’
experts can file supplemental reports. The parties further may request
extensions on expert depositions if necessary. At this time, however, the
Court will not extend all deadlines.
D.
K2M Motion
K2M’s request for a non-destructive inspection of the screws and
hardware at issue is allowed in part. The parties agree that K2M’s expert
may inspect the screws and hardware. The parties only disagree on the
conditions for the transportation of the screws and hardware. The Court
has reviewed the cases cited by the Carrigans, and conducted an
independent review of the case law, and finds no examples of any court
Page 11 of 13
imposing the kind of conditions, financial or otherwise, requested by the
Carrigans for the transportation of physical evidence for inspection by the
opposing party or designated experts. The Court will not require such
precautions.
The Defendant’s non-destructive inspection and the Plaintiffs’ third
destructive testing must be coordinated. The non-destructive inspection
should be conducted before the destructive testing is performed. K2M’s
expert may also want to attend the third destructive testing. The Court,
therefore, directs the parties to meet and confer to develop an agreed
protocol for transporting the screws and hardware in order to effectuate
both the non-destructive inspection and the third destructive testing. The
parties are directed to present to the Court by June 3, 2011, an agreed
protocol for transporting the screws and hardware to effectuate the nondestructive inspection and the destructive testing. If the parties cannot
agree, then each party should submit a proposed protocol by that date, and
the Court will decide the matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Randal W. Carrigan and Sherry Carrigan’s
Second Amended Motion to Compel Discovery and Application to Take the
Deposition of Mike Barrus Out of Time (d/e 51); Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Sixty
Day Extension of Time on All Scheduling Order Deadlines to Allow a Ruling
on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Document Number 51) and Allow Further
Page 12 of 13
Testing and Examination of the Subject Product and Allow
Plaintiffs’ Experts to Supplement Their Rule 26 Expert Reports (d/e 58);
and Defendant K2M, Inc.’s (K2M) Emergency Motion to Compel K2M
Hardware for Non-Destructive Inspection (d/e 60) (K2M Motion) are
ALLOWED IN PART as set forth above in this Opinion.
ENTER:
May 10, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 13 of 13
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?