Sosnowski v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Filing 30

Plaintiffs motion to compel 24 is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce the requested information by8/17/11. The parties are ordered to file public versions of the motion to compel and the response and replybriefs [24, 27, 28] by 8/17/11, redacting the confidential information as necessary. No court appearance isrequired on 8/17/11. WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable George W. Lindberg on 8/9/2011. Signed by the Honorable George W. Lindberg on 8/9/2011.Mailed notice(pm, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

George W. Lindberg

CASE NUMBER

11 C 59

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

8/9/2011

Sosnowski vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s motion to compel [24] is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce the requested information by
8/17/11. The parties are ordered to file public versions of the motion to compel and the response and reply
briefs [24, 27, 28] by 8/17/11, redacting the confidential information as necessary. No court appearance is
required on 8/17/11.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
In this products liability case, plaintiff claims that he was injured when components of his hip implant
prosthesis fractured. Plaintiff’s prosthesis, which defendant designed and manufactured, is composed of
multiple modular components. Defendant makes these components in various sizes and configurations.
Defendant has been sued in two other cases by plaintiffs who also claimed to have been injured by the
failure of components of their prosthetic hips: Tredennick v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., and
Cappellano v. Wright Medical Group, Inc. The Tredennick case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois
and recently terminated; Cappellano remains pending in the Central District of Illinois.
In this case, plaintiff asked defendant to identify its employees who were deposed in Tredennick and
Cappellano, and the expert witnesses it disclosed in those cases. Plaintiff also asked defendant to produce
copies of the depositions taken of defendant’s employees in Tredennick and Cappellano, and the written
reports or depositions given by the experts defendant disclosed in those cases. Defendant refused to comply
with plaintiff’s requests, and plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel.
“In ruling on motions to compel discovery, ‘courts have consistently adopted a liberal interpretation
of the discovery rules.’” Kodish v. Oakbrook Terrace Fire Protection Dist., 235 F.R.D. 447, 450 (N.D. Ill.
2006) (quoting Wilstein v. San Tropai Condominium Master Ass’n, 189 F.R.D. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill. 1999)). A
party may “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense,” even if the information would not be admissible at trial, as long as it “appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The party objecting to a discovery
request bears the burden of establishing that the request is improper. See Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
349 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1111 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

11C59 Sosnowski vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Plaintiff argues that the components at issue in Tredennick and Cappellano were similar to the
component at issue here, and that information regarding failures in those components may be relevant to
rebut defendant’s contention in this case that plaintiff’s injury was the result of intervening events and/or a
pre-existing condition. In its written response to the motion to compel, defendant argues that the requested
discovery is not relevant because the similarities between the components are superficial or insignificant.
Although the parties may dispute the extent or significance of the similarities between the
components at issue in Tredennick and Cappellano and the component at issue in this case, it appears that the
components share some similarities, and that plaintiff’s discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, it does not appear that the requests are overly broad or
burdensome. Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce the requested
information by August 15, 2011. Defendant shall redact any confidential patient information from the
documents, and the parties should address any remaining concerns regarding confidentiality through a
modified protective order, if necessary.
Finally, the Court notes that plaintiff’s motion to compel and the briefs relating to the motion were
filed under seal. While these filings may contain some confidential information, there is no reason these
entire documents should be kept from public view. The parties are ordered to file public versions of these
documents, redacting the confidential information as necessary.

11C59 Sosnowski vs. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Page 2 of 2