Gates v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 5

CERTIFIED TRANSFER ORDER transferring case to Western District of North Carolina. (Attachments: #1 MDL Certified Docket, #2 Case Management Order, #3 Motions in Limine Orders, #4 Deposition Designation Orders, #5 Discovery and Privilege Orders, #6 Master and Short-Form Pleadings, #7 Daubert Orders, #8 Miscellaneous Orders, #9 Case Management Orders, #10 Discovery Orders)(rth)

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

10
11

This Order Relates to: All Actions

MDL No. 2641
CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER NO. 2

12
13

The Court held a lengthy case management conference with the parties on

14

October 29, 2015. Before the conference, the parties submitted a proposed agenda and a

15

memorandum setting forth positions of Plaintiffs and Defendants on various issues.

16

Doc. 174. The Court entered an order with a more detailed agenda on October 19, 2015.

17

Doc. 203. This order will generally follow the topics set forth in the Court’s agenda.

18

I.

Identification and Selection of Parties’ Leadership.

19

The Court has entered Case Management No. 1, which establishes Plaintiffs’

20

Leadership Counsel. By November 6, 2015, Plaintiffs’ Lead/Liaison Counsel shall

21

submit to the Court a proposed Case Management Order concerning: (a) the duties and

22

authority of Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel in coordinating pretrial practice in this MDL;

23

(b) the establishment and operation of a common fund for eventual payment and

24

reimbursement of attorneys and their firms for common benefit work; (c) a procedure for

25

auditing the common benefit work of Plaintiffs’ attorneys and their firms; (d) a procedure

26

for making quarterly reports to the Court regarding the audits and the common benefit

27

work performed by attorneys and their firms; (e) guidelines for eventual fee applications

28

and

cost

reimbursement,

including

record-keeping

requirements,

time-keeping

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 8

1

requirements (see, e.g., Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(e)), staffing limitations for

2

various tasks, acceptable hourly rates, when travel time can be billed, reimbursable

3

expenses (what is and is not reimbursable), and acceptable levels of expense

4

reimbursement; (f) procedures or agreements designed to avoid the duplication of

5

common benefit discovery already completed in some of the MDL cases; and (g) periodic

6

status reports on coordination with state cases and other relevant matters.

7

II.

Protective and Rule 502 Orders.

8

By November 6, 2015, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court a proposed

9

protective order, including Rule 502 provisions, for all cases in this MDL. If the order

10

addresses the filing of confidential documents in court, it shall not say that such

11

documents may be filed under seal. Instead, it should say that any party seeking to file a

12

confidential document under seal shall comply with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6.

13

III.

ESI Protocol.

14

By November 30, 2015, the parties shall jointly present to the Court an ESI

15

Protocol addressing format of production, preservation, and other relevant ESI-discovery

16

matters. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on all aspects of the ESI Protocol,

17

they shall file a joint report setting forth the areas of agreement and disagreement and

18

recommending a procedure for resolving disagreements.

19

IV.

Discovery.

20

A.

21

By November 6, 2015, the parties shall propose to the Court profile forms to be

22

completed by Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect to each new case added to this

23

MDL. The intent will be to provide the parties with basic and relevant information about

24

each new case. With the exception of bellwether cases, the Court generally will not

25

oversee discovery relevant only to individual cases. It is anticipated that such discovery

26

will be conducted in transferor districts after this MDL is completed.

27

///

28

///

Discovery Relevant Only to Individual Cases.

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 8

1

B.

2

The parties will discuss whether agreement can be reached on the binding effect

3

already-completed discovery will have in cases filed after the date of the discovery. If

4

the parties are able to reach agreement, they shall jointly submit a stipulation to the Court

5

by December 18, 2015. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, each side shall file a

6

10-page memorandum setting forth its position with respect to the effect of the already-

7

completed discovery by December 18, 2015. Each side may file a 5-page response

8

memorandum by January 8, 2016.

9

C.

10

Binding Effect of Completed Discovery.

First-Phase Discovery.

By January 15, 2016, the parties shall complete a first phase of MDL discovery

11

which includes the following:

12

1.

Defendants shall provide an updated production of complaint

13

(adverse event) files relating to the Recovery, G2, G2X, and G2 Express filters, and shall

14

produce complaint (adverse event) files relating to the Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali

15

filters.

16
17

2.

Defendants shall produce updated versions of Bard’s Adverse Event

Tracking System for the various filters set forth immediately above.

18

3.

By November 10, 2015, Defendants shall produce the documents

19

described by defense counsel during the case management conference related to the FDA

20

investigation and warning letter.

21
22

4.

Plaintiffs may take a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition with respect to the

FDA investigation and warning letter.

23

5.

Kay Fuller shall be deposed.

24

D.

25

The parties shall meet and confer with respect to the following discovery issues,

26

and, by January 20, 2016, provide the Court with a joint report regarding their

27

discussions. Areas of agreement and disagreement will be clearly identified, and each

Conferences Regarding Second Phase of Discovery.

28

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 8

1

party’s position shall be set forth.

2

procedures for resolving their disagreements.

3

1.

The parties shall propose, jointly if possible,

Updated collections and productions of previously searched

4

“custodians” and ESI sources.

5

duplicative discovery, but relevant information not previously searched for should be

6

considered as a possible subject of discovery.

7
8

2.

In discussing this topic, the parties should avoid

Production of ESI from custodians involved with later-generation

filter devices or employed at later time frames.

9

3.

Further discovery related to the FDA inspection and warning letter.

10

4.

ESI and documents that have been previously withheld, if any, as to

11

Defendant’s later-generation devices, such as the Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali filters.

12

5.

Discovery related to the Simon Nitinol filter.

13

6.

Discovery regarding the Recovery Cone Removal System design,

14

design changes, corrective actions, reasons why design changes were made, regulatory

15

communications, and adverse event reports.

16

7.

Custodial files and other discovery with respect to sales and

17

marketing personnel.

18

discovery focusing on higher-level sales and marketing personnel should be undertaken

19

before discovery of lower-level personnel. The parties should also consider whether

20

sales and marketing discovery should be postponed until case-specific discovery is

21

undertaken with respect to bellwether cases.

In addressing this issue, the parties should consider whether

22

8.

23

this MDL or state-court cases.

24

9.

Additional depositions of corporate and third party witnesses.

25

10.

Rule 26 expert disclosures and expert depositions.

26

11.

Discovery related to ESI preservation issues.

27

///

28

Pending Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices in cases consolidated in

///

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 5 of 8

1

V.

Issues to be Briefed.

2

A.

3

Defendants shall file a motion for protective order with respect to the Lehmann

4

Report, including evidentiary material, by November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs shall file a

5

response, including evidentiary material, by December 18, 2015. Defendants shall file a

6

reply by January 8, 2016. The parties’ briefs should address whether the Lehmann

7

Report constitutes work product, whether an evidentiary hearing is needed, and what

8

effect the Court’s ruling should have in cases where this issue has already been decided.

9

B.

Lehmann Report.

Privilege Logs.

10

By November 13, 2015, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs the current version

11

of all privilege logs. By the same date, Defendants shall identify for Plaintiffs all

12

documents that previously were listed on privilege logs but subsequently were produced

13

to Plaintiffs. A chart showing privilege log control numbers and bates numbers of

14

produced documents likely would be most helpful.

15

Between November 13, 2015 and early January, 2016, the parties should engage in

16

the informal privilege log exchange proposed by Defendants during the case management

17

conference.

18

agreement on privilege log issues. For purposes of the informal exchange, the parties

19

should apply the work product law set forth in the magistrate judge’s decision in the

20

Nevada case, unless they agree upon different legal standards. This paragraph will not

21

preclude parties from arguing for a different legal standard if privilege log issues must be

22

resolved by the Court.

The purpose of this exchange will be to see if the parties can reach

23

By January 20, 2016, the parties shall provide the Court with a joint report on

24

their privilege log efforts, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement, setting forth

25

the parties’ positions on the disagreements, and proposing procedures for resolution of

26

any remaining outstanding issues.

27

///

28

///

-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 6 of 8

1

VI.

Pleading and Filing Procedures.

2

By November 30, 2015 the parties shall provide to the Court a master complaint

3

drafted by Plaintiffs, a master answer drafted by Defendants, and templates of short-form

4

complaints and answers agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall also submit to the

5

Court a proposed case management order which provides that the master complaint and

6

master answer will be filed in the master docket in this MDL proceeding; that new cases

7

may be filed in the District of Arizona using the short-form complaint; that filing of a

8

short-form complaint in the District of Arizona will not mean that the trial in that case

9

will be held in Arizona, but instead will mean that the case will be transferred to the

10

appropriate home district at the conclusion of this MDL; that Defendants may file a short-

11

form answer in response to a short-form complaint; and that service of process in cases

12

filed in the District of Arizona using the short-form complaint may be made by email on

13

defense counsel.1

14

The parties shall include in the jointly-submitted case management order a

15

provision identifying cases in which the master complaint and master answer will not

16

become the operative pleadings – where the existing complaints and answers will remain

17

the operative pleadings. The master complaint and answer will become the operative

18

pleadings in all other cases in this MDL.

19

VII.

Handling of Advanced Cases.

20

This MDL includes some cases in which discovery and motion practice has been

21

completed. The Court does not intend to reopen already-decided Daubert motions or

22

motions for summary judgment in these cases. The parties agree, however, that these

23

cases should not be remanded to transferor courts at the present time. Rather, they will

24

remain a part of the MDL and will be considered as possible bellwether cases in the

25

future.

26
1

27
28

The parties should address an additional issue in their November 30 filing. If
cases are filed in Arizona under such a case management order, what is the legal basis
upon which they later would be transferred to their home district? Because they would
not originally have been filed in another district, transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)
presumably would not be available.
-6-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 7 of 8

1

VIII. Coordination with State Court Litigation.

2

Plaintiffs’ Lead/Liaison Counsel shall, through the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee,

3

coordinate discovery and motion practice in this MDL proceeding with state court cases.

4

As an immediate matter, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall coordinate discovery of Hill &

5

Knowlton with state cases.

6

IX.

Next Case Management Conference.

7

The Court will hold a second case management conference on January 29, 2016

8

at 9:00 a.m. The parties should file a joint report and proposed agenda by January 20,

9

2016, identifying issues to be addressed at the conference.2

The purpose of the

10

conference will be to address matters raised in the joint report and the various filings

11

identified above. The Court will establish a second phase of fact discovery on the basis

12

of the parties’ submissions and discussions at the case management conference. The

13

Court will also confer with the parties about a schedule for expert disclosures,

14

depositions, and Daubert motions. Because many of the cases in this MDL proceeding

15

have involved no expert discovery, the Court concludes that full Rule 26 disclosures,

16

followed by depositions and Daubert motions, should be conducted in this MDL. The

17

effect of that discovery and motion practice in cases where experts have already been

18

disclosed will be addressed later.

19

X.

20

Other Matters.
A.

Settlement Talks. After conferring with the parties, the Court concluded

21

that it should not require global settlement talks at this stage of the litigation. The

22

number and nature of cases to be added to this MDL is yet to be determined, and the

23

scale of this litigation will be an important factor in settlement efforts. The Court will

24

raise this issue with the parties in the future.

25
26

B.

Discovery Disputes. The parties shall not file written discovery motions

without leave of Court. If a discovery dispute arises, the parties promptly shall contact

27
2

28

Among other topics, the joint report should identify pending motions in all MDL
cases and set forth the parties’ recommendation as to what the Court should do with those
motions.
-7-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 249 Filed 10/30/15 Page 8 of 8

1

the Court to request a telephone conference concerning the dispute. The Court will seek

2

to resolve the dispute during the telephone conference, and may enter appropriate orders

3

on the basis of the telephone conference. The Court may order written briefing if it does

4

not resolve the dispute during the telephone conference.3 Parties shall not contact the

5

Court concerning a discovery dispute without first seeking to resolve the matter through

6

personal consultation and sincere effort as required by Local Rule of Civil Procedure

7

7.2(j).

8

C.

Briefing Requirements. All memoranda filed with the Court shall comply

9

with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b) requiring 13 point font in text and footnotes.

10

Citations in support of any assertion in the text shall be included in the text, not in

11

footnotes.

12

D.

Rule 34 Responses. Rule 34 responses shall comply with the amended

13

Rule 34 to become effective on December 1, 2015.

14

Dated this 30th day of October, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3

28

The prohibition on “written discovery motions” includes any written materials
delivered or faxed to the Court, including hand-delivered correspondence with
attachments.
-8-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER NO. 8

10
11
12
13

The Court held a second case management conference with the parties on

14

January 29, 2016. The conference was scheduled to address a number of issues identified

15

in Case Management Order No. 2 (“CMO 2”) (Doc. 249).

16

I.

Second-Phase Discovery.

17

The parties have largely completed the first phase of discovery outlined in CMO 2.

18

The Court adopts the following schedule for the second phase of discovery in this MDL

19

proceeding. The discovery shall include all common fact and expert issues in this MDL,

20

but not case-specific issues to be resolved in individual cases after remand.

21

A.

22

The deadline for completing fact discovery, including discovery by subpoena,

23

shall be October 28, 2016. To ensure compliance with this deadline, the following rules

24

shall apply:

25

Fact Discovery.

1.

Depositions: All depositions shall be scheduled to commence at

26

least five working days prior to the discovery deadline. A deposition commenced five

27

days prior to the deadline may continue up until the deadline, as necessary.

28

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 10

1

2.

Written Discovery: All interrogatories, requests for production of

2

documents, and requests for admissions shall be served at least 45 days before the

3

discovery deadline.

4

3.

The parties may mutually agree in writing, without Court approval,

5

to extend the time provided for discovery responses in Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal

6

Rules of Civil Procedure. Such agreed-upon extensions, however, shall not alter or

7

extend the discovery deadlines set forth in this order.

8
9

B.

Expert Disclosures and Discovery.
1.

Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as

10

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than

11

December 16, 2016.

12

2.

Defendant(s) shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as

13

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than

14

February 3, 2017.

15

3.

Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than

16

March 3, 2017. Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by

17

initial experts.

18

4.

Expert depositions shall be completed no later than May 19, 2017.

19

5.

Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2)(A) must include the identities of

20

treating physicians and other witnesses who will provide testimony under Federal Rules

21

of Evidence 702, 703, or 705, but who are not required to provide expert reports under

22

Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures are required for such witnesses on the

23

dates set forth above. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures must identify not only the subjects on

24

which the witness will testify, but must also provide a summary of the facts and opinions

25

to which the expert will testify. The summary, although clearly not as detailed as a

26
27
28

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 10

1

Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report, must be sufficiently detailed to provide fair notice of what the

2

expert will say at trial.1

3

6.

As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 (1993

4

Amendments), expert reports under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) must set forth “the testimony the

5

witness is expected to present during direct examination, together with the reasons

6

therefor.” Full and complete disclosures of such testimony are required on the dates set

7

forth above; absent extraordinary circumstances, parties will not be permitted to

8

supplement expert reports after these dates. The Court notes, however, that it usually

9

permits parties to present opinions of their experts that were elicited by opposing counsel

10

during depositions of the experts. Counsel should depose experts with this fact in mind.

11

C.

12

In CMO 4 (Doc. 363), the Court identified 13 mature cases. The Court and parties

13

concluded at the conference that these cases should not be subject to a separate discovery

14

track, but that some or all of them may be ready for remand before other cases in this

15

MDL proceeding. The parties should confer and agree on additional discovery or motion

16

practice needed for these 13 cases, and shall file a stipulation identifying the specific

17

litigation steps to be taken with respect to these cases. The purpose will be to remand

18

these cases as soon as reasonably possible, rather than postponing their disposition until

19

the end of this MDL proceeding.

20

March 1, 2016.

21

II.

Mature Cases.

The parties’ stipulation shall be filed by

Bellwether Selection Process.

22

The parties will confer and seek to agree on procedures to govern the selection of

23

bellwether cases. The parties shall file a stipulation or joint submission on this issue by

24
25
26
27
28

1

In Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2011), the
Ninth Circuit held that “a treating physician is only exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s
written report requirement to the extent that his opinions were formed during the course
of treatment.” Id. at 826. Thus, for opinions formed outside the course of treatment,
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) written reports are required. Id. For opinions formed during the course
of treatment, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures will suffice.
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 10

1

March 1, 2016.

2

Defendants’ fact sheets, as were previously to be submitted on January 15, 2016. In this

3

respect, the Court grants the parties’ stipulation at Doc. 436.

4

III.

The submission shall include proposed forms of Plaintiffs’ and

ESI and Previously Searched Custodians.

5

The Court held an extended discussion with the parties on electronically stored

6

information (“ESI”) previously produced in this case, Plaintiffs’ desire for additional

7

information on the ESI, and related matters. The Court enters the following orders.

8

A.

9

System Architecture.
1.

Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs, in an interview or Rule 30(b)(6)

10

deposition, information regarding Defendants’ corporate structure and corporate

11

information systems.

12

understanding the locations of information relevant to this litigation.

13

2.

The purpose of these disclosures will be to aid Plaintiffs in

After obtaining this general information, Plaintiffs may conduct an

14

interview or a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition focusing on the architecture of Defendants’

15

information systems that are reasonably likely to contain information relevant to the

16

products at issue in this MDL proceeding.

17

comparable to the kind of location discovery that was expressly permitted by Rule

18

26(b)(1) before December 1, 2015, and removed from the language of the rule only

19

because the Advisory Committee concluded that it was unnecessary because such

20

discovery is routinely granted.

21
22

B.

The Court deems this discovery as

Defendants’ ESI Collection Efforts.
1.

Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the following categories of

23

information in the form of interrogatory answers: A reasonably detailed description of

24

the kinds of information defense counsel obtained from Bard witnesses interviewed as

25

part of Defendants’ document and ESI collection efforts in 2005 and 2006; a reasonably

26

detailed description of update efforts Defendants have undertaken with respect to those

27

custodians; reasonably detailed information regarding steps Defendants have taken to

28

locate and produce relevant information from their shared document management

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 5 of 10

1

systems, including QUMAS and Master Control; all combinations of keyword search

2

terms used by Defendants when searching for ESI, including instructions within these

3

combinations of search terms; and any testing Defendants have done to determine

4

whether their searches for ESI have been over-inclusive or under-inclusive.

5

2.

Once the foregoing information has been exchanged, the parties

6

shall meet and confer about additional information sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs shall

7

identify, with specificity, the categories of additional information they seek regarding

8

Defendants’ ESI-collection efforts. If the parties are unable to agree, they shall submit to

9

the Court a matrix that contains a separate line for each specific category of information

10

Plaintiffs seek, with two columns on each line. The left column shall set forth Plaintiffs’

11

specific information request and an explanation of why it is relevant and discoverable.

12

The second column shall set forth Defendants’ response and explanation as to why the

13

information is not discoverable. The parties shall complete this process and, if necessary,

14

submit the matrix to the Court by March 18, 2016.

15

C.

16

The Court concludes that it is premature for the parties to engage in discovery

17

focused primarily on Defendants’ alleged failure to preserve ESI. Thus far, there has

18

been no demonstration that ESI has been lost. In addition, under Rule 37(e), parties

19

should seek to find allegedly lost ESI through additional discovery efforts before a Court

20

is to take corrective or punitive measures. If Plaintiffs later develop a good faith basis for

21

concluding that relevant ESI has been lost and that some remedy is appropriate under

22

Rule 37(e), they may raise the issue with the Court. This ruling does not foreclose

23

Plaintiffs, during a deposition of a witness, from asking where information relevant to

24

that witness’s testimony is located.

25

IV.

26

Preservation Discovery.

Document and ESI Discovery from New Custodians.
A.

Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs, in the form of interrogatory answers,

27

the identification of employees who were involved with the Eclipse, Meridian, and

28

Denali filters and whose documents and ESI have not yet been searched.

-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 6 of 10

1

B.

With this information in hand, Plaintiffs shall identify the specific

2

custodians from whom they seek ESI discovery using the search terms already

3

established in prior cases, and any additional search terms upon which the parties agree.

4

If the parties are unable to reach agreement on custodians, they shall include the specific

5

identifications of these custodians, and the searches Plaintiffs seek with respect to the

6

custodians, in the matrix to be provided to the Court by March 18, 2016.

7

V.

FDA Inspection and Warning Letter.

8

On or before February 10, 2016, the parties shall file 15-page memoranda

9

addressing the relevancy and discoverability of information related to the FDA inspection

10

and warning letter. The purpose will be to aid the Court in determining whether further

11

discovery with respect to the letter is warranted in this case. As part of the briefing,

12

Plaintiffs should describe the specific discovery they seek with respect to the letter.

13

VI.

Discovery Regarding Recovery Cone Removal System.

14

The briefing described in the preceding paragraph shall include a discussion of the

15

Recovery Cone Removal System, why it is or is not relevant in this case, and why

16

discovery regarding the system is or is not warranted.

17

VII.

Discovery Regarding Simon Nitinol Filter.

18

Plaintiffs shall identify the specific discovery they seek to take regarding the

19

Simon Nitinol Filter (“SNF”). The parties shall meet and confer regarding this requested

20

discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, they shall include Plaintiffs’

21

specific discovery requests, and Defendants’ objections, in the matrix to be filed by

22

March 18, 2016, as discussed above.

23

VIII. Discovery Regarding Sales and Marketing Personnel.

24

Discovery may begin with respect to Defendants’ national sales and marketing

25

practices. If, after completion of this discovery, Plaintiffs feel that discovery is needed of

26

Defendants’ regional sales and marketing practices, they shall discuss their specific

27

discovery requests with Defendants. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, they

28

shall raise this issue with the Court. The Court will not set a deadline for this issue to be

-6-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 7 of 10

1

raised, but it should not be raised so late in the fact discovery schedule to afford

2

insufficient time for discovery to be completed.

3

IX.

Pending Rule 30(b)(6) Notices in Consolidated Cases.

4

Issues regarding discovery of sales and marketing practices have been dealt with

5

above. Discovery regarding the remaining issues in current notices – the FDA warning

6

letter, regulatory affairs and communications, and post-market surveillance and adverse

7

events reporting – should be addressed by the parties after the Court rules on the

8

discoverability of the FDA warning letter. Existing notices are deemed moot, and may be

9

re-issued during the discovery period if warranted. Disagreements should be brought to

10

the Court’s attention.

11

X.

Depositions of Previously-Deposed Witnesses.

12

Defendants have noted that approximately 80 witnesses have been deposed in

13

connection with these cases before establishment of the MDL. Defendants generally

14

oppose re-deposing these witnesses on topics already covered. Plaintiffs agree that there

15

would be no purpose in re-asking the same questions of the same witnesses who were

16

previously deposed. The parties have filed memoranda on the question of what discovery

17

taken in Bard filter cases before this MDL proceeding should be deemed binding in this

18

proceeding.

19

As the Court observed during the conference, this is not a matter governed by

20

Rule 32(a)(8). That rule concerns the use of depositions in later proceedings; it does not

21

place a limit on depositions in later proceedings. Although Rule 30(a) generally permits

22

deposition of witnesses, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that the Court must limit discovery

23

“otherwise allowed by these rules” if “the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative

24

or duplicative, or might be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less

25

burdensome, or less expensive,” or if “the proposed discovery is outside the scope

26

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i), (iii).

27

The Court declined to place a numerical limit on the number of fact depositions

28

Plaintiffs may conduct in this MDL. The Court also declined to place an hours limit on

-7-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 8 of 10

1

depositions. At the same time, the Court strongly agrees that the parties should not spend

2

time asking the same questions of the same witnesses who have been deposed in these or

3

previous filter cases.

4

disagreements about whether previously-deposed witnesses may be deposed again.

5

A.

The Court establishes the following procedure for resolving

If Plaintiffs conclude that a previously-deposed witness should be deposed

6

again, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with an explanation of why the witness should

7

be deposed again. Relevant reasons would include, but are not necessarily limited to,

8

new topics that are relevant to this MDL proceeding and were not addressed in the

9

previous deposition, or new information about topics that were addressed in the previous

10

deposition. Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with an approximation of the time for the

11

renewed deposition. The parties shall confer in good faith to reach agreement with

12

respect to the proposed deposition.

13

B.

If the parties are unable to agree, Defendants shall bear the burden of

14

seeking a protective order under Rule 26(b)(2)(C). Defendants shall do so by placing a

15

joint conference call to the Court to discuss the proposed depositions. The Court hopes

16

the parties will be able to reach agreement on these issues and, if not, that the Court’s

17

rulings on a few depositions will provide sufficient guidance for the parties to reach

18

agreement in the future. The Court will consider appointment of a Special Master if the

19

issues become too numerous, but strongly prefers not to add that additional complexity

20

and expense to this case.

21

C.

The parties and the Court talked about whether “trial depositions” should

22

be taken in this MDL. Plaintiffs suggested that such depositions could justifiably address

23

questions and subjects previously covered in depositions. The Court will not authorize

24

trial depositions at this point. If Plaintiffs conclude at a later stage that trial depositions

25

of some witnesses should be taken, they may raise the issue with Defendants. The Court

26

is reluctant, however, to adopt a procedure that will result in the re-deposition of virtually

27

every witness previously deposed in this or related litigation solely for the purpose of

28

capturing trial testimony.

-8-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 9 of 10

1

XI.

Discovery Regarding Kay Fuller Allegations.

2

Plaintiffs may depose witnesses Edwards and Vierling in connection with Kay

3

Fuller allegations. With respect to other witnesses Plaintiffs seek to depose, the parties

4

shall follow the procedures set forth in section X above.

5

XII.

Early Consideration of Equitable Tolling.

6

The Court and the parties discussed whether this MDL proceeding is the correct

7

venue to address or decide equitable tolling issues. Such issues may implicate case-

8

specific matters such as state law, when a particular Plaintiff knew or should have known

9

of his or her claim, and other case-specific equitable factors. If it is possible to address

10

this issue on an MDL-wide basis that would advance the litigation, however, it should be

11

considered. Defendants stated that they will discuss this issue further with Plaintiffs and

12

bring it to the Court’s attention if they wish to propose a method for considering

13

equitable tolling in this proceeding.

14

XIII. Pending Motions in Individual Cases.

15

Exhibit 7 to the parties’ joint report (Doc. 451-7) identifies a number of motions

16

pending in cases that have been transferred to this MDL. The Court concluded that these

17

motions should be denied without prejudice to the parties’ reasserting them in the

18

individual cases after this MDL proceeding is resolved, or asserting them as part of non-

19

case-specific issues and motions to be resolved in this proceeding. The Court shall deny

20

these motions without prejudice, making reference to this Case Management Order.

21

XIV. Privilege Log Issues.

22

The parties advised the Court that they may be able to reach agreement on the best

23

method for resolving their disagreements with respect to privilege logs. The parties shall

24

advise the Court by February 12, 2016, whether they have been able to reach agreement

25

and, if not, their recommended procedure for resolving the issues.

26

XV.

ESI Protocol.

27

The Court will enter the parties’ stipulated order at Doc. 438. The Court directed

28

the parties, however, to engage in additional discussions about whether they can agree on

-9-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 519 Filed 02/02/16 Page 10 of 10

1

a stipulated order dealing with preservation, including by Plaintiffs. The parties shall

2

notify the Court on or before February 12, 2016, as to whether they have reached

3

agreement on this issue. If they have, they shall submit a stipulated order to the Court.

4

XVI. Next Case Management Conference.

5

The next Case Management Conference will be held on March 31, 2016 at

6

10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report, and any issues

7

they wish to address at the conference, by March 25, 2016. The parties’ submission

8

should include a proposed agenda for the conference.

9

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 10 -

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

9

MDL No. 15-02641 PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 9 __

10
(ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION AND DOCUMENT
FORM AND FORMAT
PRODUCTION PROTOCOL)

11
12
13

This Order shall govern the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”)

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

and paper (“hardcopy”) documents. Subject to the protective order entered in In re Bard
IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation (this “Action”), this Order applies to all future
document productions in this Action, including all cases transferred to this Court in the
original Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, those
subsequently transferred as tag-along actions, and all cases directly filed in or removed to
this MDL.
I.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A.

General Provisions

Scope
The procedures and protocols outlined herein govern the production of ESI and

paper documents. For any other materials, the Parties shall meet and confer regarding the
form and format of production for specific items or categories of items. Nothing in this
protocol shall limit a party’s right to seek or object to discovery as set out in applicable
rules or to object to the authenticity or admissibility of any hardcopy document or ESI
produced in accordance with this Order.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 15

1

B.

Prior Productions

2

For purposes of this Case Management Order, the term “prior productions” means

3

all non-case specific ESI and hardcopy documents previously produced by Defendants to

4

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel that bear the following Bates prefixes:

5

 BPV-17

6

 BPVE

7

 BPVEFILTER

8

 BPV-CIV-COMPLAINT

9

 BPV-COMP

10

 BPV-COMP-ET

11

 BPV-COMP-TW

12

 BPV-DEP

13

 BPV-EXPERT DISCL

14

 BPV-DISCOV

15

 BPV-EXPERT

16

 BPV-TRIAL-TRANS

17

 BPV-TRIAL-EXHIBIT

18

 YH

19

 YORK-SUBPOENA

20

 BPV-INSURANCE-POLICIES

21

 KAUFMAN-SUBPOENA

22

 FDA_PRODUCTION

23

 BPV-HEARING-TRANS

24

 BPV-FULLER

25

C.

Designated ESI Liaison

26

Each side shall designate one or more individuals as Designated ESI Liaison(s) for

27

purposes of meeting and conferring with the other parties and of attending Court hearings

28

on the subject of relevant ESI. The Designated ESI Liaison shall be reasonably prepared
2

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 15

1

to speak about and to explain the party’s relevant electronic systems and capabilities and

2

the technical aspects of the manner in which the party has responded to e-discovery,

3

including (as appropriate) relevant ESI retrieval technology and search methodology.

4

D.

Inadvertent Production

5

The inadvertent production of any material constituting or containing attorney-

6

client privileged information or work-product, or constituting or containing information

7

protected by applicable privacy laws or regulations, shall be governed by provisions

8

contained in the Protective Order entered in this action.

9

E.

10
11

Non-Discoverable ESI and Non-Readily Accessible Data Resources
1.

The following categories of ESI are presumed to be inaccessible and not

discoverable:

12

a.

Deleted, “slack,” fragmented, or unallocated data on hard drives;

13

b.

Random access memory (RAM) or other ephemeral data;

14

c.

On-line access data such as (without limitation) temporary internet

15

files, history files, cache files, and cookies.

16

2.

The parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding the collection

17

and/or production of data from these sources.

18

F.

19
20

Meet and Confer for Disputes
Prior to bringing any dispute regarding ESI to the Court, the parties must meet and

confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

21
22
23

II.
A.

Electronically Stored Information

Production in Reasonably Usable Form
1.

Reasonably Usable Form: The parties shall produce ESI in a reasonably

24

usable form. Except as stated in Paragraphs B & C below or as agreed hereafter by the

25

parties, such reasonably usable form shall presumptively be the single-page tagged image

26

file format (“TIFF”) with extracted or OCR text and associated metadata set out in

27

Attachment A, which is incorporated in full as part of this Order. A Receiving Party may

28

request production of specifically identified ESI, including ESI produced originally in
3

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 15

1

TIFF form (identified by beginning and ending Bates numbers), in native form. If the

2

Producing Party objects to production in native form, the parties shall meet and confer

3

regarding the form of production for the specifically identified ESI. For any dispute, the

4

Receiving Party shall bear the burden to demonstrate good cause for the production in

5

native form and the Producing Party shall bear the burden of proving any undue hardship.

6

2.

Redactions:

The Producing Party may redact from any TIFF image,

7

metadata field, or native file material that is protected from disclosure by an applicable

8

privilege or immunity, HIPAA regulations, FDA regulations, or other applicable privacy

9

law or regulation, that contains commercially sensitive, purely personal, or proprietary

10

information not at issue in this Action, or that the Protective Order entered in this Action

11

allows to be redacted. Each redaction shall be indicated clearly. Documents that have

12

been redacted on the basis of attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any

13

other applicable legal privilege or immunity shall be identified on a party’s “privilege

14

log,” with a description of the reason(s) for redaction.

15

documents that are redacted on bases other than the foregoing privileges shall be

16

identified on a separate “redaction log,” with a description of the reason(s) for redaction.

17

For all prior productions, if the basis for the redaction is not obvious from the face of the

18

document, Plaintiffs may request that Defendants identify the basis for the redaction of a

19

particular document. Such request must by identify the document by its beginning and

20

ending Bates numbers. For each such request, Defendants shall provide clarification

21

within a reasonable time after receiving the request.

22

3.

For all future productions,

Color Documents: Each party may make requests, for good cause, for

23

production of specifically identified documents (i.e., identified by beginning and ending

24

Bates numbers) in color.

25

B.

Electronic Spreadsheets, Presentations, and Multimedia Files

26

Electronic spreadsheets (e.g., Excel), electronic presentations (e.g., PowerPoint),

27

and audio/video multimedia files that have been identified as responsive shall be produced

28

in native form, unless they are authorized to be redacted in accordance with Paragraph A.2
4

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 5 of 15

1

above. After such redactions, the Producing Party either shall produce the redacted file in

2

the reasonably usable form set out in Attachment A or shall produce the redacted copy in

3

native format.

4

C.

Additional Procedures for Native Form Files

5

Any party seeking to use, in any proceeding in this Action, files produced in native

6

form shall do so subject to the following: The original production number and

7

confidentiality designation shall be stamped on each page of any TIFF image or hardcopy

8

document representing the original native-format file. Use of a file in native form or use

9

of a TIFF image or hardcopy document representing the original native-form file shall

10

constitute a representation that the file being used is an accurate depiction of the original

11

native-form file.

12

D.

13

Email Threading
1.

Email threads are email communications that contain prior or lesser-

14

included email communications that also may exist separately in the party’s electronic

15

files. A most inclusive email thread is one that contains all of the prior or lesser-included

16

emails, including attachments, for that branch of the email thread. Each party may

17

produce (or list on any required privilege log) only the most inclusive email threads as

18

long as the most inclusive email thread includes all non-produced emails that are part of

19

the same string.

20

2.

Following production of the most-inclusive email threads, a Receiving Party

21

may request the metadata associated with individual prior or lesser-included emails within

22

the identified most-inclusive email threads.

23

reasonably in responding to any such requests.

24

E.

The Producing Party shall cooperate

Avoidance of Duplicate Production

25

“Duplicate ESI” means files that are exact duplicates using an industry-accepted

26

file hash algorithm. The Producing Party need produce only a single copy of responsive

27

Duplicate ESI. A Producing Party shall take reasonable steps to de-duplicate ESI globally

28

(i.e., both within a particular custodian’s files and across all custodians). Entire document
5

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 6 of 15

1

families may constitute Duplicate ESI. De-duplication shall not break apart families.

2

When the same Duplicate ESI exists in the files of multiple custodians, the Producing

3

Party shall include with the load file for the ESI the names of all Custodians associated

4

with the duplicate ESI.

5

III.

Documents That Exist Only in Hardcopy (Paper) Form

6

A party may produce documents that exist only in hardcopy form either (a) in their

7

original hardcopy form or (b) scanned and produced in TIFF form as set out in

8

Attachment A. If the Producing Party elects to scan and to produce hardcopy documents,

9

the scanning must be done such that the resulting image includes all information on the

10

original hardcopy document. The production of original hardcopy documents in TIFF

11

form does not otherwise require that the scanned images be treated as ESI.

12

Dated this 31st day of March, 2016.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 7 of 15

1

Attachment A:

2

The following protocols apply to any ESI or hardcopy documents produced in this

3

litigation:

4

(a)

Image Files: Files produced in *.tif image form will be single page black

5

and white *.tif files at 300 DPI, Group IV compression. To the extent possible, original

6

orientation will be maintained (i.e., portrait-to-portrait and landscape-to-landscape). Each

7

*.tif file will be assigned a unique name matching the production number of the

8

corresponding page. Production (“Bates”) numbers shall be endorsed on the lower right

9

corner of all images. This number shall be a unique, consistently formatted identifier that

10

will:

11

i.

be consistent across the production;

12

ii.

contain no special characters; and

13

iii.

be numerically sequential within a given file.

14

Bates numbers should include an alpha prefix and an 8 digit number (e.g., ABC-

15

00000001). The number of digits in the numeric portion of the Bates number format

16

should not change in subsequent productions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, continued

17

use of any of the following Bates prefixes shall be permitted under this Protocol:

18

 BPV-17

19

 BPVE

20

 BPVEFILTER

21

 BPV-CIV-COMPLAINT

22

 BPV-COMP

23

 BPV-COMP-ET

24

 BPV-COMP-TW

25

 BPV-DEP

26

 BPV-EXPERT DISCL

27

 BPV-DISCOV

28

 BPV-EXPERT
7

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 8 of 15

1

 BPV-TRIAL-TRANS

2

 BPV-TRIAL-EXHIBIT

3

 YH

4

 YORK-SUBPOENA

5

 BPV-INSURANCE-POLICIES

6

 KAUFMAN-SUBPOENA

7

 FDA_PRODUCTION

8

 BPV-HEARING-TRANS

9

 BPV-FULLER

10

Confidentiality designations, if any, will be endorsed on the lower left corner of all images

11

and shall not obscure any portion of the original file

12

(b)

File Text: Except where ESI contains text that has been redacted under

13

assertion of privilege or other protection from disclosure, full extracted text will be

14

provided in the form of a single *.txt file for each file (i.e., not one *.txt file per *.tif

15

image). Where ESI contains text that has been redacted under assertion of privilege or

16

other protection from disclosure, the redacted *.tif image will be OCR’d and file-level

17

OCR text will be provided in lieu of extracted text. Searchable text will be produced as

18

file-level multi-page ASCII text files with the text file named to match the beginning

19

production number of the file. The full path of the text file must be provided in the *.dat

20

data load file.

21

(c)

Word Processing Files: Word processing files, including without limitation

22

Microsoft Word files (*.doc and *.docx), will be produced in *.tif image form, as

23

described in subsection (a). If a word processing file includes any tracked changes or

24

comments in its native form, the *.tif image will include any tracked changes and

25

comments. If the Receiving Party requests the native form production of any word

26

processing file that includes tracked changes or comments in its native form (identified by

27

beginning and ending Bates numbers), the Producing Party shall produce the particular

28

file in native form unless the Producing Party demonstrates that the request is
8

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 9 of 15

1

unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Each party may make requests, for good cause, for

2

production of other specifically identified Word Processing Files in native format in

3

accordance with Section II.A.1 of this Order.

4

(d)

Presentation Files:

Presentation files, including without limitation

5

Microsoft PowerPoint files (*.ppt and *.pptx), will be produced in native form. To the

6

extent that such files are produced as *.tif images, in accordance with subsection (a), for

7

purposes of redaction and such files contain comments, hidden slides, speakers’ notes, and

8

similar data, the presentation files shall be produced in the following formats: (i) first, as

9

*.tif images of “clean” final versions of each slide (after all animations, etc.) in the

10

presentation, and (ii) second, as *.tif images that display all comments, hidden slides,

11

speakers’ notes, and similar data in such files. The second version shall be produced and

12

bates labeled immediately following the “clean” version of the file.

13

(e)

Spreadsheet or Worksheet Files:

Spreadsheet files, including without

14

limitation Microsoft Excel files (*.xls or *.xlsx), will be produced in native form. To the

15

extent that such files are produced as *.tif images, in accordance with subsection (a), for

16

purposes of redaction and such files contain hidden rows, columns, and worksheets, the

17

spreadsheet files shall be produced in the following formats: (i) first, as *.tif images of

18

“clean” versions of the file without hidden rows, columns, and worksheets; and

19

(ii) second, as *.tif images that display hidden rows, columns, and worksheets, if any, in

20

such files. The second version shall be produced and bates labeled immediately following

21

the “clean” version of the file.

22

(f)

Parent-Child Relationships: Parent-child relationships (e.g., the associations

23

between emails and their attachments) shall be preserved.

24

attachments will be produced as independent files immediately following the parent email

25

or ESI record. Parent-child relationships will be identified in the data load file pursuant to

26

Paragraph (n) below.

27
28

(g)

Email and other ESI

Dynamic Fields: Where documents have an automatically updated date and

time, file names, files paths, or similar information that, when processed, would be
9

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 10 of 15

1

inaccurate for how the document was used in the ordinary course of business, the

2

Producing Party shall use best efforts to produce the document with placeholders for those

3

fields such as: “Auto Date,” “Auto File Name,” “Auto File Path,” or similar words that

4

describe the automatic field.

5
6
7

(h)

English Language: If no English version of a file is available, the Producing

Party shall not have an obligation to produce an English translation of the data.
(i)

Embedded Objects: Some Microsoft Office and .RTF files may contain

8

embedded files, including but not limited to Microsoft Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Project,

9

Outlook, Access, and PDF. Subject to claims of privilege and immunity, as applicable,

10

the Producing Party shall use reasonable efforts to extract as separate files those identified

11

file types, where appropriate, and those shall be produced as attachments to the file in

12

which they were embedded.

13

(j)

Compressed Files: Compressed file types (i.e., .CAB, .GZ, .TAR. .Z, .ZIP)

14

shall be decompressed in a reiterative manner to ensure that a zip within a zip is

15

decompressed into the lowest possible compression resulting in individual files. Files

16

included in compressed file type that are attached to another file shall be individually

17

identified as related to the “parent” document in the data load file pursuant to Paragraph

18

(n) below.

19

(k)

Encrypted Files: The Producing Party will take reasonable steps, prior to

20

production, to unencrypt any discoverable ESI that exists in encrypted format (e.g.,

21

because password-protected) and that can be reasonably unencrypted.

22

(l)

Non-Viewable Files:

During document review, certain documents are

23

opened that are not viewable in the default HTML rendered format. In such instances, the

24

Producing Party shall attempt to create a TIFF image with a viewable image.

25

unsuccessful, the Producing Party shall attempt to open the document with a native

26

viewer. If the file cannot be viewed via any of these methods, the Producing Party shall

27

attempt to procure a replacement of the file from the original source location. If the

28

replacement yields the same issues, the Producing Party shall (i) identify the file in a log
10

If

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 11 of 15

1

of “corrupt files” to be produced to the Receiving Party and (ii) maintain the native file for

2

request for production or review by the Receiving Party in accordance with this Order.

3
4

(m)

Scanned Hardcopy Documents:
i.

In scanning hardcopy documents, multiple distinct documents should

5

not be merged into a single record, and single documents should not

6

be split into multiple records (i.e., hard copy documents should be

7

logically unitized).

8

ii.

If a Producing Party is requested, and agrees, to provide OCR text for

9

scanned images of hard copy documents, OCR should be performed

10

on a document level and be provided in document-level *.txt files

11

named to match the production number of the first page of the

12

document to which the OCR text corresponds. OCR text should not

13

be delivered in the data load file or any other delimited text file.

14

Except where hard copy documents contain text that has been

15

redacted under assertion of privilege or other protection from

16

disclosure, a Producing Party may not withhold from production any

17

OCR text that the party has in its possession, custody or control for

18

scanned images of hard copy documents that the party is producing.

19

Where hard copy documents contain text that has been redacted

20

under assertion of privilege or other protection from disclosure, and

21

the Producing Party has in its possession OCR text for said

22

documents, the redacted *tif image will be OCR’d and file-level

23

OCR text will be provided in lieu of the original OCR text.

24

iii.

In the case of an organized compilation of separate hardcopy

25

documents -- for example, a binder containing several separate

26

documents behind numbered tabs -- the document behind each tab

27

should be scanned separately, but the relationship among the

28
11

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 12 of 15

1

documents in the binder should be reflected in proper coding of the

2

family fields set out below.

3

(n)

Production Numbers: The Producing Party shall take reasonable steps to

4

ensure that attachments to documents or electronic files are assigned production numbers

5

that directly follow the production numbers on the documents or files to which they were

6

attached. If a production number or set of production numbers is skipped, the skipped

7

number or set of numbers shall be noted. In addition, wherever possible, each *.tif image

8

will have its assigned production number electronically “burned” onto the image.

9
10

(o)

Data and Image Load Files for ESI:
i.

Load Files Required: Unless otherwise agreed, each production will

11

include a data load file in Concordance (*.dat) format produced in

12

ASCII and an image load file in Opticon (*.opt) format.

13

ii.

14

Load File Formats:
a)

Load file names should contain the volume name of the

15

production media. Additional descriptive information may be

16

provided after the volume name. For example, both

17

ABC001.dat or ABC001_metadata.dat would be acceptable.

18

b)

Unless other delimiters are specified, any fielded data

19

provided in a load file should use Concordance default

20

delimiters. Semicolon (;) should be used as multi-entry

21

separator.

22

c)

Any delimited text file containing fielded data should contain

23

in the first line a list of the fields provided in the order in

24

which they are organized in the file.

25

iii.

Metadata Fields to Be Included in Data Load File: For all ESI

26

produced, the following metadata fields for each file, if available at

27

the time of collection and processing and unless such metadata fields

28

are protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege or work12

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 13 of 15

1

product immunity or otherwise prohibited from disclosure by law or

2

regulation, shall be provided in the data load file, except to the extent

3

that a file has been produced with redactions:

4

a)

FileName /FILENAME

5

b)

DocEmailFolder/LOCATIONS

6

c)

CreatedDateTime

7

d)

DocCreatedDateTime

8

e)

DateRecieved/DATERCVD and TIMERCVD (email only)

9

f)

StartBates/BEGDOC

10

g)

EndBates/ENDDOC

11

h)

StartAttach/BEGATTACH

12

i)

EndAttach/ENDATTACH

13

j)

PageCount/PGCOUNT

14

k)

FileExt/DOCEXT

15

l)

ModifiedDate/DATELASTMOD and TIMELASTMOD

16

m)

DateSent/DATESENT (email only)

17

n)

To/TO (email only)

18

o)

BCC (email only)

19

p)

CC (email only)

20

q)

AttachName (email only)

21

r)

Hash or MD5HASH

22

s)

Custodian/CUSTODIAN

23

t)

DocLink/NATIVEFILE

24

u)

TextLink/TEXTFILE

25

v)

AuthorFrom/DOCAUTHOR

26

w)

TitleEmailSubject/EMAIL SUBJECT

27

x)

RECORDTYPE

28

y)

DOCTYPE
13

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 14 of 15

1

z)

DOCDATE

2

aa)

PARENTDATE

3

bb)

DATELASTPRINT and TIMELASTPRINT

4

cc)

ORGANIZATIONS

5

dd)

COMMENTS

6

ee)

LASTAUTHOR

7

ff)

REVISION.

8
9

(p)

Data and Image Load Files for Hardcopy Productions:
i.

Load Files Required: Unless otherwise agreed, each production will

10

include a data load file in Concordance (*.dat) format and an image

11

load file in Opticon (*.opt) or Ipro (*.lfp) format.

12

ii.

13

Load File Formats:
a)

Load file names should contain the volume name of the

14

production media. Additional descriptive information may be

15

provided after the volume name. For example, both

16

ABC001.dat or ABC001_metadata.dat would be acceptable.

17

b)

Unless other delimiters are specified, any fielded data

18

provided in a load file should use Concordance default

19

delimiters. Semicolon (;) should be used as multi-entry

20

separator.

21

c)

Any delimited text file containing fielded data should contain

22

in the first line a list of the fields provided in the order in

23

which they are organized in the file.

24

iii.

Fields to Be Included in Data Load File: For all hardcopy documents

25

produced in *.tif format, the following fields, if available, shall be

26

provided in the data load file:

27

a)

StartBates

28

b)

EndBates
14

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1259 Filed 03/31/16 Page 15 of 15

1

c)

StartAttach

2

d)

EndAttach

3

e)

Custodian

4

(q)

Files Produced in Native Format: Any electronic file produced in native file

5

format shall be given a file name consisting of a unique Bates number and, as applicable,

6

a confidentiality designation; for example, “ABC00000002_Confidential.”

7

native file produced, the production will include a *.tif image slipsheet indicating the

8

production number of the native file and the confidentiality designation, and stating “File

9

Provided Natively.” To the extent that it is available, the original file text shall be

10

provided in a file-level multi-page UTF-8 text file with a text path provided in the *.dat

11

file; otherwise the text contained on the slipsheet shall be provided in the *.txt file with

12

the text path provided in the *.dat file.

13

(r)

For each

Production of Media: Unless otherwise agreed, documents and ESI will be

14

produced on optical media (CD/DVD), external hard drive, secure FTP site, or similar

15

electronic format. Such media should have an alphanumeric volume name; if a hard drive

16

contains multiple volumes, each volume should be contained in an appropriately named

17

folder at the root of the drive. Volumes should be numbered consecutively (ABC001,

18

ABC002, etc.). Deliverable media should be labeled with the name of this action, the

19

identity of the Producing Party, and the following information: Volume name, production

20

range(s), and date of delivery.

21

(s)

Encryption of Production Media: To maximize the security of information

22

in transit, any media on which documents or electronic files are produced may be

23

encrypted by the Producing Party. In such cases, the Producing Party shall transmit the

24

encryption key or password to the Requesting Party, under separate cover,

25

contemporaneously with sending the encrypted media.

26
27

5184438v3/26997-0001

28
15

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 7

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 10

10
11
12

The Court held a third case management conference with the parties on

13
14

March 31, 2016.

The conference was scheduled to address ongoing matters and a

15

number of issues identified in Case Management Order No. 8 (“CMO 8”) (Doc. 519).

16

I.

Second Phase Discovery.

17

A.

Fact Discovery.

18

Fact discovery is under way. The parties reported that they have scheduled seven

19

depositions and are in the process of scheduling more. The parties also continue to

20

discuss a number of discovery issues that will be addressed later in this Order. The

21

parties are encouraged to continue exchanging relevant information on discovery topics

22

on which they agree, even if other issues need to be presented to the Court.

23

The Court asked the parties whether special deposition scheduling is needed, such

24

as blocking out specific weeks for depositions and double-tracking or triple-tracking

25

depositions. Counsel stated they do not believe such deposition scheduling is needed at

26

this time. The parties should provide an update on this issue in the status report to be

27

filed before the next case management conference.

28

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 7

1

B.

2

Case Management Order No. 4 (as amended) identifies 13 mature cases that are

3

not governed by the Master Complaint and Master Responsive Pleading and that are not

4

generally subject to ongoing discovery. After further discussion, the parties have agreed

5

that the Conn, Milton, and Mintz cases identified in Case Management Order No. 4

6

(Doc. 1108) should no longer be treated as mature cases. Rather, they will be treated as

7

all other cases in this MDL. The remaining 10 cases identified in CMO 4 will continue to

8

be treated as mature cases under that CMO. The parties should address these cases in the

9

joint status report they file before the next case management conference, and particularly

Mature Cases.

10

when these cases will be ready for remand.

11

II.

Bellwether Selection Process.

12

Consistent with the direction in CMO 8, the parties have addressed an appropriate

13

bellwether selection process. They have submitted a stipulation related to the process

14

(Doc. 923), and a stipulation regarding fact sheets to be exchanged during the process

15

(Doc. 1153).

16

The Court discussed the proposed procedures and fact sheets with the parties,

17

making some suggestions for modifications. The parties will make modifications to their

18

stipulations and, by April 15, 2016, provide the Court with a stipulated case management

19

order to govern the bellwether selection process and fact sheets.

20

As part of this work, the parties will provide the Court with a stipulated order

21

regarding the collection of records.

22

April 15, 2016.

This stipulated order will be provided by

23

While discussing the bellwether process, the Court discussed the issue of Lexecon

24

waivers. The parties will confer to see if they can agree on a procedure for dealing with

25

Lexecon waivers. Plaintiffs’ counsel are of the view that such issues should be addressed

26

up front so as not to interfere with the selection of cases after much work has been

27

invested in the bellwether pool.

28

concern about choosing the Bellwether pool solely from cases in which Plaintiffs have

Defense counsel does not disagree, but expressed

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 7

1

agreed to waive Lexecon. The Court described for the parties the approaches taken in a

2

number of other MDL cases. The parties will confer to see if they can reach agreement.

3

The Court will also do inquire further into cross-designations for trials in transferor

4

districts under 28 U.S.C. § 292(b) and (d).

5

III.

ESI and Previously Searched Custodians.

6

The parties have filed a joint motion to extend the deadline in CMO 8 for

7

presenting a matrix to the Court outlining ESI disagreements. Doc. 1151. The motion

8

notes that the parties have been working on this issue diligently, and requests a new

9

deadline for submitting disagreements to the Court by May 16, 2016. The Court will

10

grant the joint motion, but advised the parties that it will not be inclined to grant

11

additional extensions. ESI issues need to be resolved soon. ESI production and review

12

tends to take a significant amount of time, and if ESI issues are not resolved soon, there

13

may be too little time remaining in the discovery schedule for a thorough production and

14

review of ESI. The parties will also continue to address the issue of new custodians

15

(CMO 8, § IV) and submit any disagreements to the Court, in a matrix, by May 16, 2016.

16

IV.

FDA Inspection and Warning Letter.

17

The Court has reviewed the memoranda and other materials provided by the

18

parties with respect to discovery related to the FDA warning letter. See Docs. 693, 697,

19

850, 989, 1152. The Court provided initial feedback on the issues raised. The Court

20

views discovery related to under-reporting or non-reporting of problems with retrievable

21

filters to be clearly relevant to this case. Actual failure rates will be relevant to Plaintiffs’

22

negligence and product defect claims.

23

Defendants concerning failure rates will be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and

24

misrepresentation.

25

disproportionate in light of the factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(1).

Evidence regarding representations made by

The Court does not view discovery on these issues to be

26

At the same time, the Court sees little relevancy in the Recovery Cone issues. The

27

Recovery Cone has always been available for retrieval of Defendants’ filters, the FDA

28

has now approved use of the Recovery Cone, and no claim in this case is based on

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 7

1

alleged defects in the Recovery Cone. Defendants have offered to produce Ms. Edwards

2

for a deposition on the Recovery Cone issue, and the Court agrees, but the Court believes

3

that other discovery is not warranted.

4
5

In addition to this guidance, the Court noted that the three or four employees who
report to Chad Modra should be deposed. They appear to have relevant information.

6

With this feedback in hand, the parties are to discuss the specific discovery

7

requests of Plaintiffs with respect to the under-reporting issue. If they are unable to reach

8

agreement on appropriate discovery, the parties should provide the Court with a matrix

9

setting forth their specific areas of disagreement by April 15, 2016.

10
11
12

V.

Discovery Regarding Simon Nitenol Filter (“SNF”).
The Court has reviewed the matrix provided by the parties on this issue.

Doc. 1161. The Court provided guidance during the case management conference.

13

The Court does not believe that discovery related to the design or testing of the

14

SNF is relevant to this case. Plaintiffs do not contend that the SNF is defective. To the

15

contrary, they intend to argue that the SNF was a safe and effective product, that

16

retrievable filters were less safe, and that Defendants made misrepresentations to the

17

FDA and the public when they asserted that the retrievable filters were substantially

18

equivalent to the SNF or as safe as the SNF. In light of these positions, the actual design

19

and testing of the SNF will not be at issue in this case.

20

The Court also concludes, however, that sales and marketing materials related to

21

the SNF, documents comparing filter performance and failure rates to the SNF, and

22

internal communications on these subjects are relevant. At the same time, it would be

23

unduly burdensome to require Defendants to produce every document related to sales and

24

marketing of SNF over its 20-plus year life, or every communication related to that

25

subject. The Court instructed the parties to confer and attempt to reach agreement on

26

appropriate discovery with respect to these subjects. If the parties are unable to agree,

27

they should include this subject in the matrix to be submitted to the Court on

28

April 15, 2016. Plaintiffs should be precise in the discovery they seek so that the matrix

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 7

1

will be as focused as possible.

2

The parties have reached agreement on regulatory communications relating to the

3

SNF. Defendants will be providing discovery on this issue.

4

VI.

Depositions of Previously Deposed Witnesses.

5

The parties are in the process of negotiating a deposition protocol for the case.

6

This protocol presumably will include agreement on depositions of previously deposed

7

witnesses and witnesses related to the Kay Fuller issue. The parties will provide a

8

stipulated deposition protocol to the Court by April 15, 2016.

9

VII.

Privilege Log Issues.

10

The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to resolve privilege log issues. The

11

Court has reviewed the status reports provided by the parties (see Docs. 705, 984), as

12

well as Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. 1214).

13

The parties have been unable to reach agreement on 133 documents identified

14

during their first sampling effort. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel with respect to

15

these documents (Doc. 1214) that identifies several specific legal issues and attaches a

16

spreadsheet identifying the documents and setting forth a summary of Plaintiffs’ position

17

with respect to each document. Rather than simply completing the briefing on this issue,

18

the Court directed the parties to take the following steps.

19

By the close of business on April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs shall identify for Defendants

20

the specific legal issues addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.1 In addition, with

21

respect to each of these issues, Plaintiffs shall identify three documents from among the

22

133 documents still in dispute.

23

By April 11, 2016, Defendants shall file a memorandum with the Court

24

addressing the specific legal categories identified by Plaintiff. Defendants shall set forth

25

their legal arguments on each of these issues. On the same day, Defendants shall provide

26

Plaintiffs with the identification of two additional documents for each of the legal

27
1

28

The Court sees discrete issues in the following sections of Plaintiffs’ motion:
IV.B.1, IV.B.2, IV.B.3.a, IV.B.3.b, IV.B.3.c, IV.B.3.d, IV.B.3.e, and IV.C, but Plaintiffs
are free to narrow the list.
-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 6 of 7

1

categories, chosen from the 133 documents in dispute, as well as a draft matrix setting

2

forth Defendants’ arguments (in summary form – the memoranda need not be repeated)

3

with respect to the five documents chosen by the parties for each legal category.

4

By April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file a reply memorandum which addresses the

5

specific legal issues identified for Defendants on April 4, 2016. Plaintiffs shall attach to

6

the memorandum the matrix which sets forth, in summary form, the parties’ respective

7

arguments with respect to the five documents chosen for each of the legal issues

8

addressed in the briefing. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide defense counsel with a draft of

9

the matrix two days before this filing so that defense counsel can make any needed

10

adjustments to their section of the matrix. On April 22, 2016, Defendants shall provide

11

the Court with in camera copies of the documents listed in the matrix.

12

The Court will enter an order on the legal issues and the five documents chosen

13

for each issue. The intent will be to provide guidance to the parties concerning the

14

Court’s view of privilege and work product issues, hopefully to help the parties in

15

resolving additional disagreements.

16

The Court and parties also discussed part B of the parties’ joint report. Doc. 705.

17

The Court directed the parties to engage in the process described in part B, but only with

18

respect to Plaintiffs’ seven proposed categories. The Court sees no purpose in addressing

19

Bard’s proposed categories. The Court agrees that the parties should provide a joint

20

report to the Court by May 27, 2016, describing their progress and the number of

21

documents that remain in dispute. If the number is large, the Court most likely will

22

appoint a special master to work with the parties in resolving the privilege log issues.

23

VIII. Equitable Tolling.

24

Defendants have filed a brief on this issue. Doc. 1146. The parties will brief this

25

issue under the time limits set forth in the relevant rules. The Court will rule on it in due

26

course.

27

IX.

28

Next Case Management Conference.
The next Case Management Conference will be held on June 22, 2016 at

-6-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 7 of 7

1

10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on issues

2

mentioned in this order and any issues they wish to address at the conference by

3

June 15, 2016. If issues arise in the meantime that require prompt decision, the parties

4

should place a conference call to the Court.

5

Dated this 1st day of April, 2016.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 12
(Joint Record Collection)

10
11
12
13

Based upon the stipulation and agreement of the parties (Doc. 1470),

14

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

15

1.

The parties to this litigation have jointly agreed to use The Marker Group,

16

Inc. (“Marker”) to collect medical, insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription, Social

17

Security, workers’ compensation, and employment records for individual plaintiffs from

18

third-parties designated as custodians for such records by Plaintiffs or Defendants C.R.

19

Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular (“Bard”).

20

2.

All plaintiffs who are included in the PFS/DFS Group 1 of the Bellwether

21

process (as set forth in Case Management Order No. 11, Doc. 1662) must complete, date,

22

and execute the agreed upon forms of party authorizations attached to this Order as

23

Exhibit A (the “Authorizations”). Those plaintiffs may not object to the form, execution,

24

or issuance of the Authorizations.

25

plaintiff shall authorize production of records from the date five years prior to implant for

26

all records described in the Authorizations.

27
28

3.

In completing the authorizations, the individual

Each Plaintiff required to execute Authorizations under this Order must

provide the original completed and executed Authorizations to Marker on the date that

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 19

1

his or her Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) is due to be served on Bard. Each Plaintiff must

2

also serve copies of the same to Defendants with his or her PFS.

3

4.

If a custodian to whom an Authorization is presented refuses to provide

4

records in response to the Authorization, Marker will notify the parties (in accordance

5

with its vendor agreement with the parties). The individual plaintiff’s attorney shall

6

attempt to resolve the issue with the custodian, such that the necessary records are

7

promptly provided.

8

Authorizations, the individual plaintiff whose records are sought must complete the

9

custodian-specific authorization form within ten (10) days after it has been provided by

10

Marker or Bard unless he or she objects to the form. If the individual plaintiff objects to

11

the custodian-specific form, the parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the

12

objection.

13

5.

To the extent any custodian requires a release other than the

Marker will send all custodians from whom records are sought the form of

14

certificate of acknowledgment attached as Exhibit B (the “Acknowledgement”). The

15

Acknowledgement will serve as evidence of authenticity and satisfy the requirements of

16

authentication under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a). All other evidentiary objections

17

are preserved, and any party retains the right to offer proof that the certified documents

18

are not complete or are otherwise inaccurate.

19

6.

Marker will obtain records and host them in a secure database, accessible to

20

Plaintiffs and Bard, according to the parties’ vendor agreement with Marker. Any party

21

may request any ancillary services from Marker at its own expense.

22

7.

Upon receipt of records and placement into the secure database, Marker

23

will notify designated individuals for Plaintiffs and Bard (via email) that documents have

24

been posted for Plaintiffs’ review on Marker’s website. Plaintiffs shall have ten (10)

25

calendar days after such notice from Marker (the “Review Grace Period”) to review

26

records for privilege and compliance with the applicable date range for the records.

27

During the Review Grace Period, Plaintiffs will identify any documents for which they

28

claim a privilege exists or that fall outside of the applicable date range for the records. In

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 19

1

the event that Plaintiffs’ counsel in good faith finds that the volume or content of the

2

documents posted cannot be sufficiently reviewed within the Review Grace Period,

3

Plaintiffs will notify Bard and Marker, within the applicable Review Grace Period, of a

4

request for extension of time to review the documents. Thereafter, the parties will meet

5

and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ request for an extension. If the parties are unable to

6

agree, Plaintiffs will apply to the Court for relief during the Review Grace Period. Such

7

application shall extend the Review Grace Period until resolution by the Court.

8
9
10
11

8.

Prior to the end of the Review Grace Period, Plaintiffs will notify Bard and

Marker if they contend that there are privileged documents within the group or that there
are documents that fall outside of the applicable date range for the records.
9.

Absent notification by Plaintiffs to Marker of a claimed privilege,

12

agreement to extend the Review Grace Period, or a request for relief made to the Court

13

within the Review Grace Period, Marker will automatically make the documents

14

accessible to Bard on the day after the Review Grace Period ends.

15

10.

If Plaintiffs notify Bard of a privilege claim, Plaintiffs’ counsel will

16

produce to Bard, via email, a privilege log identifying the documents as to which

17

privilege is asserted, the bases for the claimed privilege, and whether Plaintiffs will be

18

producing redacted versions of any of the documents within five (5) business days of the

19

notice. Plaintiffs will contemporaneously produce to Marker any redacted documents

20

and instruct Marker in writing to either make the redacted documents available to both

21

parties on Marker’s website or to withhold from Bard the entire set or portion of records

22

based upon Plaintiffs’ claim of privilege until further notice.

23

11.

In the event that Plaintiffs inadvertently fail to claim a legal privilege they

24

contend attaches to any record, Plaintiffs shall request a clawback of those documents by

25

Bard, meet and confer with Bard counsel regarding those documents, and, if the parties

26

agree, direct Marker to destroy the designated records.

27
28

12.

If Plaintiffs notify Bard of a claim that certain documents fall outside of the

applicable date range for the records, Plaintiffs’ counsel will produce to Bard, via email,

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 19

1

a log identifying all such documents (including their dates).

2

contemporaneously instruct Marker in writing to withhold those documents from Bard

3

until further notice based upon Plaintiffs’ claim that they fall outside of the applicable

4

date range for such records.

5

13.

Plaintiffs will

The parties will meet and confer on any claims that documents are

6

privileged or fall outside of the applicable date range for the records, and if not resolved,

7

and if not resolved, place a joint call to the Court to seek resolution of the issue.

8

14.

Bard will pay the total costs associated with records collection from each

9

custodian, including the records-copying and provision charges from the custodians and

10

Marker’s collection service fees. Plaintiffs may download collected records from the

11

repository by paying Marker’s fees for a copy of those records without contributing to the

12

costs incurred by Bard to obtain the records from custodians. In the event that Bard

13

believes that Plaintiffs’ downloading of records exceeds that which the parties

14

contemplated in agreeing to this Order, Bard may meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ Co-

15

Lead Counsel. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they shall contact the Court on

16

how to resolve the issue.

17

15.

Any party may choose to discontinue the use of the joint vendor, Marker, at

18

any time upon thirty (30) days’ notice to the other parties. The withdrawing party will

19

remain responsible for the costs of any records ordered prior to the withdrawal to the

20

extent otherwise required by this Order.

21
22
23

16.

Each party retains the right to issue subpoenas and to employ other means

for discovery if required by any custodian to obtain records.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2016.

24
25
26
27
28

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 6 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 7 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 8 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 9 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 10 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 11 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 12 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 13 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 14 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 15 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 16 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 17 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 18 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1663 Filed 05/05/16 Page 19 of 19

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2238 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 13

10
11
12

The Court held a fourth Case Management Conference with the parties on

13

June 21, 2016. The conference was scheduled to address ongoing matters and a number

14

of issues identified in Case Management Order No. 10 (Doc. 1319).

15

A.

ESI Discovery.

16

The Court addressed the discovery dispute identified in the parties’ matrix

17

regarding ESI discovery and custodians. Doc. 1756. The parties have made considerable

18

progress in agreeing on custodians to be searched or revisited, and the development of

19

search terms. After considering arguments from the parties about the matrix dispute, the

20

Court concluded that Defendants’ ESI searches should include the regional sales

21

managers identified in the matrix. See Doc. 1756 at 5. The Court is persuaded that these

22

regional sales managers had direct responsibility for Defendants’ sales force throughout

23

the nation and likely will possess relevant information.

24

B.

FDA Warning Letter.

25

The Court addressed issues raised by the parties in a matrix of disputes related to

26

the FDA warning letter. Doc. 1471. The first, second, and fourth issues raised in the

27

matrix (Plaintiffs’ deposition request no. 7, Plaintiffs’ deposition request no. 8, and

28

Plaintiffs’ request for production no. 35) concern discovery of internal communications

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2238 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 4

1

related to the FDA warning letter and related actions. Counsel advised the Court that

2

Defendants have agreed to include in the ESI discovery search 11 of the 17 individuals

3

identified by Plaintiffs, and that the parties will continue discussing the remaining six

4

individuals Plaintiffs have identified. As a result, the parties agreed that the Court need

5

not rule on this issue.

6

The Court addressed the fourth dispute (Plaintiffs’ request for production no. 26)

7

regarding Plaintiffs’ request for the complete employment files of Messrs. Modra,

8

Uebelocker, Wheeler, and Ludwig. After listening to the parties’ arguments, the Court

9

concluded that Defendants need not produce the entire employment files for these

10

individuals. But Defendants shall produce, under the protective order, documents from

11

the files relating to any internal discipline, reprimands, adverse consequences, negative

12

employment reviews, or comparable information, taken against any of these four

13

individuals on the basis of under-reporting or non-reporting addressed in the FDA

14

warning letter.

15

The final issue raised in the matrix concerned Plaintiffs’ request for the “files” of

16

Messrs. Ring, Williamson, and Gaede related to the FDA investigation and warning

17

letter. Defense counsel have agreed to produce ESI from Messrs. Williamson and Gaede,

18

and the parties are discussing the production of ESI from Mr. Ring. The Court concluded

19

that Plaintiffs’ request for the “files” of these individuals is vague and imprecise.

20

Plaintiffs should craft more specific requests for production. The Court agreed that ESI

21

to or from these individuals related to the FDA warning letter is relevant and should be

22

produced, but further production will depend on Plaintiffs’ issuance of more precise

23

document requests.

24

C.

25

Deposition Protocol.
The Court reviewed the deposition protocol submitted by the parties. Doc. 1472.

26

The Court will make some minor modifications and issue the protocol shortly.

27

D.

28

Confidentiality Designations.
The parties’ joint report for the status conference (Doc. 1756) noted that Plaintiffs

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2238 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 4

1

disagree with confidentiality designations Defendants have applied to some documents

2

under the Court’s protective order. Plaintiffs have been identifying the designations with

3

which they disagree, pursuant to paragraph 22 of the protective order, and asked whether

4

the Court wishes to rule on these disagreements now or later in the litigation. The Court

5

directed the parties to raise these issues later in the litigation, when documents are to be

6

used in connection with dispositive motions. At that point in the case, a different

7

standard for protection of information will apply and the Court’s decision will be

8

informed by the nature of the dispositive motions being filed by each side. In the

9

meantime, if a confidentiality designation creates problems in discovery, the parties

10

should call the Court immediately for a resolution.

11

E.

Discovery Schedule.

12

The Court discussed the existing October 28, 2016 fact discovery deadline with

13

the parties. See CMO 8, Doc. 519. Both sides stated that discovery was proceeding well

14

and that the deadline does not present concerns.

15

F.

Mature Cases.

16

The Court requested an update on the 10 mature cases that are likely to be

17

remanded before other cases in this MDL. See Doc. 1485 at 2. In the joint report to be

18

filed before the next Case Management Conference, the parties should address these

19

cases and identify projected dates by which they will be returned to their original

20

districts.

21

G.

Recently Filed Class Action.

22

The parties advised the Court that Plaintiffs’ counsel recently have filed a medical

23

monitoring class action, which was assigned to this Court. See Barraza, et al. v. CR

24

Bard, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-16-1374-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz. May 5, 2016). The parties

25

stipulated on the record that the class action may be consolidated with this MDL. The

26

Court will enter a separate order consolidating the cases. The parties also agreed that the

27

fact discovery deadline of October 28, 2016, will apply to the class action. In the joint

28

report to be filed before the next Case Management Conference, the parties shall provide

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2238 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 4

1

the Court with a proposal regarding the remaining litigation schedule for the class action.

2

Specifically, the parties should address when a motion for class certification will be filed,

3

what expert discovery is needed before that motion is filed, and whether other deadlines

4

in the MDL, such as the deadlines for disclosure of merits-related expert reports, will

5

apply in the class action.

6

H.

Next Case Management Conference.

7

The Court will hold the next Case Management Conference on August 23, 2016

8

at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on issues

9

mentioned in this Order and any issues they wish to address at the conference on or

10
11

before August 17, 2016.
Dated this 21st day of June, 2016.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2239 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL CASES

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 14
(Deposition Protocols)

12
13
14

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (Doc. 1472),

15

IT IS ORDERED that the following deposition protocols shall be followed in

16

depositions conducted in the above-referenced MDL.

17

A.

18
19

Deposition Notices
1.

This Order applies to all depositions in MDL-2641, which will be noticed

and conducted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("FRCP") 30 and this Order.

20

2.

This Order, in its entirety, shall be attached to any non-party subpoena or

21

deposition notice.

22

B.

23

Cross-Notices Between State Court Cases and These Proceedings
Any depositions originally noticed in this MDL may be cross-noticed in any state

24

court cases pending at the time of the deposition.

25

C.

Number of Depositions Allowed

26

Any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rule purporting to limit the

27

number of depositions shall not apply in this MDL proceeding. If either side believes

28

that the other is taking unnecessary or irrelevant depositions they may bring the issue to

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2239 Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 5

1

the Court for appropriate resolution, after first making a good faith effort to resolve the

2

issue without the Court’s involvement.

3

D.

4

Scheduling of Depositions
1.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, counsel shall cooperate with opposing

5

counsel and counsel for proposed deponents in an effort to schedule depositions at

6

mutually convenient times and locations in accordance with the schedule established in

7

this case.

8
9
10

2. Lead and Liaison Counsel shall be responsible for providing posted notice of
any deposition in this MDL to counsel.
E.

Location of Depositions

11

The parties shall endeavor to schedule all depositions at locations within a

12

reasonable distance from the place of residence of the deponent, or at such other location

13

as is agreed to by all counsel involved and the deponent.

14

F.

15

Attendance at Deposition
1.

In order to arrange for adequate deposition space, counsel wishing to attend

16

in person a deposition noticed in MDL-2641 shall provide notice to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead

17

Counsel or Defendants' Lead Counsel of their intention to attend in person three days in

18

advance of the deposition. Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants’ Lead Counsel

19

shall consult two days prior to the deposition to ensure that there is adequate space for the

20

deposition.

21

2.

In the event that a party wishes to participate in a deposition remotely, that

22

is, either by telephone or internet, that party shall notify the party noticing the deposition

23

(either Plaintiff’ Co-Lead Counsel or Defendants’ Lead Counsel) two days in advance of

24

the start of the deposition and make the arrangements necessary to participate in the

25

deposition. Any party seeking to participate remotely must agree to be bound by

26

applicable Protective Order in this case and agree not to re-record the deposition, by

27

video or audio means.

28

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2239 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 5

1

3.

While a deponent is being examined about any information subject to the

2

Protective Order entered in this litigation, persons to whom disclosure is not authorized

3

shall be excluded whether in person or telephonically.

4

G.

5

Conduct of Depositions
1.

There should ordinarily be no more than two examining attorneys per side,

6

who shall confer prior to the deposition regarding the allocation of time to question.

7

Counsel for Plaintiffs shall cooperate so that examinations by multiple attorneys for the

8

MDL do not exceed the allotted time. Under no circumstances will Plaintiffs’ failure to

9

allocate time among themselves (or to enforce such an allocation during the deposition)

10

result in the extension of a deposition.

11

2.

All deposition objections are reserved, except as to the form of the question

12

and the answer. Counsel shall otherwise comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) concerning

13

objections at depositions. An objection by one party reserves the objection for all parties.

14

H.

15

Duration and Time Allocation of Deposition
1.

The time limitations on depositions imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1)

16

shall apply in the MDL unless the parties agree to a different time limitation in the MDL

17

or the Court establishes a different time limitation in this Order or for a particular

18

deposition or depositions. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith regarding any request

19

by any Party for an extended length of time for a particular deposition. If the Parties

20

cannot agree on the length of a deposition, a Party may move for an extension of the

21

seven hour limit; provided that in no event may a deposition last more than seven hours

22

in a given day absent agreement of counsel or order of this Court.

23

2.

The party noticing the deposition of an opposing party, its officers, present

24

employees, present agents, and present consultants shall be entitled to the full time

25

allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P 30(d)(1). The deposed party (or party whose officers,

26

employees, or agents are deposed) may extend the deposition beyond the time allowed

27

under Fed. R. Civ. P 30(d)(1) in order to examine the witness; however, the noticing

28

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2239 Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 5

1

party shall presumptively be entitled to an additional amount of deposition time equal to

2

half the time used by the extending party.

3

3.

For the depositions of former employees, agents, or consultants of Bard

4

both sides shall have the opportunity to examine the witnesses on common issues for up

5

to a total of eight (8) hours. The deposition time shall be allocated as follows: six (6)

6

hours to Plaintiffs, and two (2) hours to Bard. If Bard believes unusual circumstances

7

exist to alter the allocation of time, it shall notify Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel not later

8

than ten (10) days prior to the deposition date and the parties shall meet and confer as to

9

whether to reallocate time and, if so, on the reallocation.

10
11

4.

For all other fact witnesses, both sides shall have equal time to examine the

witnesses.

12

5.

Depositions should normally be completed by no later than 7:30 p.m. on the

13

date noticed. If for some reason the deposition cannot be completed by 7:30 p.m., the

14

parties and the witness may agree to extend the deposition beyond 7:30 p.m. However, if

15

both parties and the witness are not in agreement to extend the deposition beyond

16

7:30 p.m., the parties and witness shall meet and confer regarding the date and time for

17

completion of the deposition.

18

I.

Supplemental Depositions

19

Parties added to this MDL after a deposition has been taken may, within sixty (60)

20

days after becoming a party in this Court, request permission to conduct a supplemental

21

deposition of the deponent. If permitted, the deposition shall be treated as the resumption

22

of the deposition originally noticed. Supplemental depositions may not be taken without

23

leave of court or agreement of the parties.

24

J.

Deposition Disputes

25

Disputes arising during depositions that cannot be resolved by agreement and that,

26

if not immediately resolved, will significantly disrupt the discovery schedule, require

27

rescheduling of the deposition, or possibly result in the need to conduct a supplemental

28

deposition, shall be presented to the Court by telephone. In the event the Court is not

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2239 Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 5

1

available, the parties will continue with the deposition making a full reservation of rights

2

on the record concerning the dispute at issue to preserve it for a ruling by the Court at the

3

earliest possible time.

4

Dated this 21st day of June, 2016.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3214 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 15

10
11
12

The Court held a fifth case management conference with the parties on August 23,

13
14

2016.

The conference addressed ongoing matters and issues identified in Case

15

Management Order No. 13 (Doc. 2238).

16

A.

Bellwether Selection.

17

The parties have made good progress in selecting bellwether cases for PFS/DFS

18

Group 1. See Doc. 1662. Two Plaintiffs among the cases selected by Defendants have

19

declined to provide Lexecon waivers. At the case management conference, counsel for

20

these Plaintiffs explained the Plaintiffs’ reasons for not providing waivers. After hearing

21

the reasons, and comments by defense counsel, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs are not

22

attempting to manipulate the bellwether selection process by strategically withholding of

23

waivers, and that counsel for the two Plaintiffs provided colorable reasons for declining

24

waivers. Based on these findings, the Court could identify no basis upon which to order

25

these Plaintiffs to waive their rights under Lexecon. As a result, Defendants should

26

identify two more cases and the parties should continue to follow the procedures in Case

27

Management Order No. 11 (Doc. 1662).

28

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3214 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 5

1

B.

ESI Discovery.

2

The parties have encountered some difficulties with respect to the discovery of

3

ESI from “shared” space on Defendants’ servers and computers. The Court expressed

4

concern that this issue remains unresolved so late in the litigation. To ensure that the

5

issue is resolved promptly, the Court entered the following order. The parties will meet

6

(as they had already planned to do) today to address this issue. Defense experts will be

7

present to propose a method for locating relevant ESI on shared space. If the parties have

8

not reached agreement on this issue by August 30, 2016, the Court will hold a conference

9

call on August 31, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The Court intends to appoint a Special Master if

10

a dispute remains, and to require the Special Master to render a decision on this issue no

11

later than September 16, 2016, so production can occur by the end of September. If the

12

parties reach agreement, they can simply notify the Court that a conference call is not

13

necessary on August 31, 2016. In all events, the Court expects Defendants to complete

14

production of ESI from the shared space by the end of September.

15

The parties addressed Plaintiffs’ request to obtain ESI discovery from Defendants’

16

overseas operations.

17

regulatory communications, from entities operating in foreign countries, that differ from

18

marketing and regulatory statements Defendants have made in the United States.

19

Plaintiffs have not identified any reason to believe that such different communications

20

have occurred, and Mr. Carr apparently testified that Defendants’ marketing and

21

regulatory communications all originate in Defendants’ United States operations. The

22

Court is inclined to conclude that the chances of finding relevant and helpful information

23

through such discovery are simply too remote to justify the effort required to search

24

electronic communications in 15 to 20 overseas companies in order to find statements

25

that might be inconsistent with the myriad marketing and regulatory communications

26

Defendants have issued in the United States. To ensure that the Court makes a fully-

27

informed decision on this issue, however, Plaintiffs may file a short memorandum by the

28

close of business on August 25, 2016, stating their reasons for believing either that Mr.

Specifically, Plaintiffs want to obtain marketing materials or

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3214 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 5

1

Carr’s description is incorrect or that there is good reason to suspect that relevant

2

information can be obtained from foreign sources without undue burden. If the Court

3

concludes that a response is required by Defendants, the Court will order Defendants to

4

provide that response promptly. Otherwise, Defendants need not respond, and the Court

5

will issue a ruling on this matter.

6

C.

Mature Cases.

7

The parties have indicated that remand of the mature cases identified in previous

8

Case Management Orders should await completion of expert discovery in this case

9

because such discovery may be relevant in the trials of the mature cases. The parties

10

asked whether any case-specific discovery should occur in this MDL with respect to

11

mature cases, and the Court concluded that it should not. Case-specific discovery should

12

occur after remand.

13

D.

Class Action Schedule.

14

The Court and the parties discussed a schedule for class certification discovery and

15

briefing in the Barraza case, No. CV16-1374. The Court established a schedule that will

16

be contained in a separately issued Case Management Order.

17

E.

Beasley Deposition.

18

The Court concludes that Mr. Beasley, who is a Group President at C.R. Bard,

19

qualifies for consideration under the apex deposition doctrine. The relevant inquiry,

20

therefore, is (1) whether he has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts

21

at issue in this case, and (2) whether Plaintiffs have exhausted other less-intrusive

22

discovery methods. See Klungvedt v. UNUM Grp., 2013 WL 551473, at *2 (D. Ariz.

23

Feb. 13, 2013). The parties shall file three page memoranda by the close of business on

24

August 26, 2016, addressing these issues.

25

F.

Multi-Plaintiff Cases.

26

The Court discussed with the parties a multi-plaintiff case recently transferred to

27

this MDL (CV16-2442), and a second multi-plaintiff case that may be transferred in the

28

future. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss in the recently transferred case. See

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3214 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 5

1

No. CV16-2442, Docs. 9, 10. Plaintiffs shall file a response to this motion no later than

2

September 2, 2016, and Defendants shall file a reply on or before September 13, 2016.

3

The Court will deal with the coming multi-plaintiff case when it arrives.

4

G.

Privilege Issues.

5

The parties shall resolve remaining privilege issues by September 28, 2016. If

6

the issues are not resolved by that date, the parties promptly shall place a conference call

7

to the Court.

8

H.

9

Duplicative Filings.
The parties stated that three Plaintiffs have appeared in at least two cases,

10

represented by different attorneys, in this MDL.

11

Steering Committee to confer with the attorneys representing these Plaintiffs in an effort

12

to obtain agreement regarding dismissal of one of the duplicative cases. Plaintiffs shall

13

report on this effort in the joint report to be filed before the next Case Management

14

Conference. If duplicative filings remain, the parties should propose a motion method

15

and schedule under which the Court can resolve this issue.

16

I.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs’

Plaintiffs’ Objections.

17

Plaintiffs have objected to discovery of communications between Plaintiffs and the

18

FDA related to the FDA warning letter, communications between Plaintiffs and NBC

19

related to NBC news stories about the products at issue in this case, and third-party

20

financing that may be in place with respect to Plaintiffs in this MDL.

21

discussed these issues with the parties, and decided that focused briefing is needed. By

22

the close of business on September 2, 2016, the parties shall file nine-page memoranda

23

addressing these three issues.

24

J.

The Court

Deceased Plaintiffs.

25

The Court has, unfortunately, received notices of the deaths of three Plaintiffs:

26

John L. Kuhn, Jr. (Doc. 2332), Olan Jones (Doc. 2850), and Anthony C. Docimo

27

(Doc. 3101). The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee shall contact Plaintiffs’ counsel in these

28

cases. Before the next status conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall decide whether the

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3214 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 5

1

cases survive the death of the Plaintiff in each case, and shall file documents with respect

2

to their position on the survival of claims. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall report on the status of

3

these cases and any additional cases that may arise at the next Case Management

4

Conference.

5

K.

PSC Report.

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that a report from the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee is

7

due at the end of September 2016, and requested an extension to October 31, 2016 for the

8

filing of the report. The Court agreed. After the hearing, the Court reviewed Case

9

Management Order No. 6 (Doc. 372) and noted that the most recent quarterly report was

10

due at the end of the second week of August (Doc. 372 at 13). The Court is not certain

11

what report Plaintiffs’ counsel were referring to at the conference, or whether the report

12

required in Case Management Order No. 6 has been provided. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall,

13

within the next week, communicate with the Court regarding this issue.

14

L.

Next Case Management Conference.

15

The Court will hold the next Case Management Conference on October 14, 2016

16

at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on issues

17

mentioned in this Order and any issues they wish to address at the conference on or

18

before October 10, 2016.

19

Dated this 24th day of August, 2016.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:24 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Activity in Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation Order

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if
the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 8/29/2016 at 11:23 AM MST and filed on 8/29/2016
Case Name:
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Filer:
Document Number: 3272(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the memoranda provided by the parties on the deposition of Jim Beasley. Docs. 3268, 3269.
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have not shown that Beasley falls within the apex deposition doctrine, but Plaintiffs agreed in
the Parties' joint status report that Beasley was "President of BPV from 2007 through 2012" and "is currently a Group President
at C.R. Bard." Doc. 3102 at 15. They do not dispute that in 2010 -- the year he wrote a memorandum about which Plaintiffs wish
to ask him questions -- Beasley was responsible for hundreds of Bard products. Id. at 16. The Court concludes that Beasley "is
clearly a high-level executive," and that the apex doctrine therefore applies. Klungvedt v. Unum Grp., No. 2:12-CV-00651-JWS,
2013 WL 551473, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2013). The relevant questions, then, are "whether the executive has unique, first-hand,
non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other
less intrusive discovery methods." Id. The exhibits provided by Plaintiffs confirm that Beasley is a high-level executive (Doc.
3271 at 3); suggest that someone named Mark was going to talk to Beasley about a filter study (id. at 4-13); confirm that Beasley
was identified as the author of a management memo written in 2010, addressed to Tim Ring and copied to at least five others (id.
at 46); and contain speculation by Daniel Orms about what Beasley might have known or done in connections with the memo
(id. at 15-44). These materials do not show that Beasley has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in
this case, nor that Plaintiffs have exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods to obtain relevant information. The Court
therefore concludes that Beasley should not be deposed at this time. If Plaintiffs conclude that they can make the required
showing at a later point during the discovery period, they may raise this issue again with the Court. Signed by Judge David G
Campbell on 8-29-16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC)
2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James R Condo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert B Carey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert W Boatman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Stephen O'Connor

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Turner Williamson Branch

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Paul Michael Angelo
Clyde Talbot Turner
David A Domina

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sandy A Liebhard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Paul Lincoln Stoller

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Willard J Moody, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Fred Thompson

[e-mail]

Shannon L Clark

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael William Heaviside
Leonard W Aragon

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Elizabeth C Helm

[e-mail]

Christopher A Seeger
James A Morris, Jr

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Daly

[e-mail]

Mark R Niemeyer
Joe Kendall

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael T Gallagher
Eric M Terry

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

C Lincoln Combs

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Szerlag

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John H Gomez

[e-mail]

Annesley H DeGaris
David R Ongaro
Lyn Peeples Pruitt
Anthony J Nemo
Andrew L Davick
Elaine T Byszewski

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas P Cartmell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricia Lynn Campbell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Amanda Christine Sheridan
Michael Kevin Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert D Rowland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Yvonne M Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Wendy R Fleishman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John C Duane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald A Migliori

[e-mail]

Kara Trouslot Stubbs
Samuel J Horovitz

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles R Houssiere, III
Ellen A Presby

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Max Freeman (Terminated) [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Richard W Schulte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Les Weisbrod (Terminated)
Michael K Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Carrie R Capouellez

[e-mail]

Matthew Ramon Lopez [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Alexandra V Boone (Terminated)
Eric Davis Holland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph A Osborne, Jr
Rolf T Fiebiger

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory N McEwen
John J Driscoll

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jason P Johnston
Alex C Park

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Jacob Zonies
Don K Ledgard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brendan J Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth W Pearson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Ahmed Samir Diab

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

T Matthew Leckman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Theodore Floyd Stokes
M Blair Clinton

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Stuart Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Marlene J Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Margaret Moses Branch
Adam Tal Funk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael B Leh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

D Todd Mathews

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Robert Boatman
Michael P McGartland
David J Hodge

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela M Higgins

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Kevin Gray

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph R Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

James Albert Montee
James P Cannon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brandee J Kowalzyk
Matthew B Lerner

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B North, Jr
Ben C Martin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas William Arbon
Taylor Tapley Daly
Julia Reed-Zaic

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Elizabeth Smith
Ramon Rossi Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Troy Alexander Brenes (Terminated)

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin George Lohman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Nathan Craig Van Der Veer [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Richard Arthur Freese

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert M Hammers, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James Frederick Rogers

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Ryan McCarley
Michael S Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

John A Dalimonte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teresa C Toriseva

[e-mail]

Clair A Montroy, III

[e-mail]

Melissa Dorman Matthews
David B Krangle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jason T Schneider

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Calle M Mendenhall
Spencer J Pahlke
Michael A Kelly

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven James Boranian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kimberly Waters Grant

[e-mail]

Wayne Grant

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brandon L Corl

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Andres F Alonso

[e-mail]

Christopher Thomas Kirchmer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randal A Kauffman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Hadley L Matarazzo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth Riley

[e-mail]

John Pinckney Harloe, III
[e-mail]
Matthew D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Douglas Senger Saeltzer
Michael Brandon Smith
Stephen Grant Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John Lacoste Langdoc
S Ann Saucer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura J Baughman
Russell W Budd

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Felecia L Stern

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew D Kinghorn

[e-mail]

Jon C Conlin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff R Gaddy

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
,
,

Sindhu Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roland Karim Tellis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard L Nations [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Rand P Nolen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Moze Cowper

[e-mail]

Daniel Seltz

[e-mail]

Monte Bond

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian A Goldstein

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David P Matthews
H Forest Horne

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaclyn L Anderson

[e-mail]

Graham B LippSmith

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Nolte Williams
Glen Elliot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kirsten McNelly Bibbes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Raymond Ongaro

[e-mail]

William B Curtis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Seth Crompton
Robin P Lourie

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brian Keith Jackson

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ethan L Shaw

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J Riley

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Justin W Fishback

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff Seldomridge (Terminated)
Jesse Burl Chrisp

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Erin Mielke

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David M Langevin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer A Lenze
Jaime E Moss

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laurie E Kamerrer
Nathan Buttars

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan D Peck

[e-mail]

David C DeGreeff
Todd E Hilton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sherri L Plotkin

[e-mail]

Matthew David Schultz
Matthew J. McCauley
Philip Sholtz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Lynne Voght
Rick Barreca

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Lucas James Ude
J Mark Kell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail] [e-mail]
,

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr
Matthew Paul Skrabanek
Nicholas Farnolo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jacob Edward Levy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Lee White

[e-mail]

Eric Roslansky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian E Tadtman
David M Peterson

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Nicholas Clevenger
Shezad Malik

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kristen K Barton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark C Aubuchon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

William M Berlowitz

[e-mail]

William Michael Loughran
Christian T Williams
Amy J Anderson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Everette Scott Verhine

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert Bruce Warner

[e-mail] [e-mail]
,

Lynnette Simon Marshall
Kelsey Louise Stokes

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Christopher Elliott

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian Broussard Winegar
Jim Mac Perdue, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald Hamilton Kidd
M Michael Waters

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kay L Van Wey [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Joshua D Christian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip J Pendergrass, Jr
Noah H Kushlefsky

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Scott Mokwa
Amorina P Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Scott E Brady

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip Bohrer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick T Fennell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard S Lewis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven Rotman

[e-mail]

Andrea Layne Stackhouse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Julie S Ferraro

[e-mail]

Dean A Goetz

[e-mail]

Jason S Morgan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Guarnieri

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael S. Werner

[e-mail] [e-mail]
,

Randall John Trost

[e-mail]

Randall Troy Trost

[e-mail]

Benjamin A Bertram
Karolina S Kulesza
Elizabeth Dudley

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Nicholas P Scarpelli, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond T Trebisacci

[e-mail]

Kevin P Polansky

[e-mail]

Michael Frederick Decker
Nathaniel Scearcy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
Braden Beard

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Ashleigh E Raso

[e-mail]

Mekel S Alvarez

[e-mail]

Betsy J Barnes

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Karen Delcambre McCarthy
Peter E Goss

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Timothy David Hedrick
Edward McCarthy, III
Joe A King, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela J Mason
Joseph D Lane

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

T Aaron Stringer

[e-mail]

Samuel M Wendt

[e-mail]

David L Grebel

[e-mail]

Michael S Kruse

[e-mail]

Peyton P Murphy

[e-mail]

Todd C Comeaux

[e-mail]

Jeff M Edwards

[e-mail]

2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:
Aaron A Clark
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Alex Cameron Walker
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA
500 4th St. NW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Amanda Montee
Montee Law Firm
P.O. Box 127
St. Joseph, MO 64502
Andrew J Trevelise
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Anthony James Urban
Urban Law
P.O. Box 890
Pottsville, PA 17901
Brian John Perkins
Meyers & Flowers LLC
3 N 2nd St., Ste. 300
St Charles, IL 60174
Bruce S Kingsdorf
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Catherine A Faught Pollard
Quarles & Brady LLP - Milwaukee, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2040
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
Chris Johnson
Christopher Brian Watt
Reed Smith LLP - Houston, TX
811 Main St., Ste. 1700
Houston, TX 77002

Christopher J Quinn
Driscoll Firm PC
211 N Broadway, Ste. 4050
St Louis, MO 63102
Craig D Henderson
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Craig E Hilborn
Hilborn & Hilborn
999 Haynes, Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Daniel K Winters
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
David A Onstott
Murray Law Firm
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
David J Cooner
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
David J Walz
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
David W Ledyard
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard - Beamont, TX
595 Orleans, Ste. 1400
Beaumont, TX 77701
David W Zoll
Zoll Kranz & Borgess
6620 Central Ave., Ste. 100
Toledo, OH 43617
Dawn M Barrios
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Debra A Djupman
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Dennis P Mulvihill
Wright & Schulte - Cleveland, OH
23240 Chagrin Blvd.

Cleveland, OH 44122
Diana Rabeh
Reed Smith LLP - Wilmington, DE
1201 Market St., Ste. 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
E Terry Sibbernsen
Sibbernsen, Strigenz Law Firm - Omaha
1111 N 102nd Ct., Ste. 330
Omaha, NE 68114
Edward W Gerecke
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Elaine Sargeant
Elizabeth G Grimes
Law Offices of Michael A DeMayo LLP
P.O. Box 34426
Charlotte, NC 28234
Elizabeth Hosea Lemoine
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75204
Elizabeth S Fenton
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
300 Conshohocken State Rd., Ste. 570
W Conshohocken, PA 19428
Ellen Relkin
Weitz & Luxenberg PC - New York, NY
700 Broadway, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Eric J Buhr
Reed Smith LLP - Los Angeles, CA
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frederick R Hovde
Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC
Meridian Twr.
201 W 103rd St., Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Gary Robert Tulp
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
Genevieve M Zimmerman
Zimmerman Reed PLLP - Minneapolis, MN
1100 IDS Ctr.

80 S 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Gerard C Kramer
Schmidt Ronca & Kramer PC
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Gregory D Bentley
Zonies Law LLC
1900 Wazee St., Ste.203
Denver, CO 80202
Hilary E Youngblood
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Jack Edward Urquhart
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Jacob W Plattenberger
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Jahnunnice Johnson
James P Catalano
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Nashville, TN
1 Nashville Pl.
150 4th Ave. N, Ste. 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Jamie Jean McKey
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Jane T Davis
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Charleston, SC
151 Meeting St., Ste. 600
Charleston, SC 29401
Janet Lynn White
Jennifer Ann Guidea
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
Jennifer J Hageman
Ulmer & Berne LLP - Cincinnati, OH
600 Vine St., Ste. 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Joan Anderson
Jody Lynn Rudman
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
John A Camp
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt - Miami, FL
100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
John G Mitchell
Secrest Wardle
P.O. Box 5025
Troy, MI 48007-5025
John H Allen , III
Jackson Allen & Williams LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
John J Glenn
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
John Neumann Hickey
Law Offices of John N Hickey
20 W Front St.
Media, PA 19063
Jonathan Hogins
Moody Law Firm
500 Crawford St., Ste. 200
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Jordan L Chaikin
Parker Waichman LLP - Bonita Springs, FL
27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Joshua Kincannon
4 Paragon Way, Ste. 100
Freehold, NJ 07728
Joshua A Mankoff
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Joshua D Miller
Toriseva Law
1446 National Rd.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Joshua R Johnson
Babbitt & Johnson PA
1641 Worthington Rd., Ste. 100

W Palm Beach, FL 33402
Joshua S Whitley
Smyth Whitley
BB&T Plz.
234 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 234
Charleston, SC 29492
Justin Ross Kaufman
Heard Robins Cloud LLP - Santa Fe, NM
505 Cerrillos Rd., Ste. A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Katherine Diven
Kathryn Snapka
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Kelly Elswick-Hall
Masters Law Firm
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Kevin M Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald Law Group
120 Exchange St., Ste. 200
Portland, ME 04101
Kevin M Hara
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Kevin R Martin
Martin Law Offices SC
7280 S 13th St., Ste. 102
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Lawrence R Murphy , Jr
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Louisa O Kirakosian
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mariann M Robison
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Mark A Sentenac
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105

Mathew R Doebler
Pribanic & Pribanic LLC
513 Court Pl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Matthew E Brown
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Matthew John Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Melanie M Atha
Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & ONeal LLP
P.O. Box 830612
Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
Michael Ockerman
Hanna Campbell & Powell
3737 Embassy Pkwy., Ste. 100
Akron, OH 44333
Michael F Marlow
Johnson Miner Marlow Woodward & Huff PLLC
P.O. Box 667
Yankton, SD 57078-0667
Michael Joseph Ryan
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Michael L Armitage
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Michael Alan Gross
Nancy June Falls
Neilli M Walsh
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Neville H Boschert
Jones WalkerWaechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427
Nevin Christopher Brownfield
Ongaro PC

50 California St., Ste. 3325
San Francisco, CA 94108
Patrick T Clendenen
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Peter C Wetherall
Wetherall Group Limited
9345 W Sunset Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Peter Thomas Anderson
Ashcraft & Gerel LLP - Alexandria, VA
4900 Seminar Rd., Ste. 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Raymond G Mullady , Jr
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Washington, DC
101 Constitution Ave. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20001
Raymond Joseph Kramer , III
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Rhett A McSweeney
McSweeney Langevin LLC
2116 2nd Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Richard A Zappa
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard Allen Cohn
Aitken Aitken Cohn
P.O. Box 2555
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard E Vollertsen
Atkinson Conway & Gagnon Incorporated
420 L St., Ste. 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Richard J Schicker
Schicker Law Firm
2809 S 160th St., Ste. 207
Omaha, NE 68130
Ricky L Boren
Hill Boren
P.O. Box 3539
Jackson, TN 38303-0539
Robert Diemer

Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Robert R Hatten
Patten Wornom Hatten Diamonstein LC
12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Robert Williams Goldwater , III
Goldwater Law Firm PC
15849 N 71st St., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Roberts Clay Milling , II
Henry Spiegel Milling LLP
950 E Paces Ferry Rd., Ste. 2450
Atlanta, GA 30326
Ruth A Horvatich
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Sanjay Ghosh
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC - Atlanta, GA
Atlantic Station
201 17th St. NW, Ste. 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Sarah Mangum(Terminated)
Shelia Sloan
Steven James Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tayjes Matthew Shah
Miller Law Firm LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Thomas Melone
Allco Renewable Energy Limited
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Thomas A Kenefick , III
Law Office of Thomas A Kenefick III
73 Chestnut St.
Springfield, MA 01103
Thomas K Herren
Herren & Adams
148 N Broadway

Lexington, KY 40507
Tiffany L Roach Martin
MNodrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA - Santa Fe, NM
P.O. Box 2168
Santa FE, NM 87103-2168
Timothy E Lengkeek
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Timothy John Freiberg
Freiberg Law Offices
4545 Springbrook Rd.
Rockford, IL 61114
Tor A Hoerman
TorHoerman Law LLC - Edwardsville, IL
101 W Vandalla St., Ste. 350
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Vickie J Traughber
Vivian M Quinn
Nixon Peabody LLP - Buffalo NY
Key Towers at Fountain Plaza
40 Fountain Plz., Ste. 500
Buffalo, NY 14202
W Bryan Smith
Morgan & Morgan PA - Memphis, TN
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
William H Carpenter
William H Carpenter Law Office Limited
P.O. Box 35070
Albuquerque, NM 87176-5070
Wilnar Jeanne Julmiste
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Zachary Logan Wool
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if
the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/6/2016 at 2:29 PM MST and filed on 9/6/2016
Case Name:
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Filer:
Document Number: 3312(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER. The Court has considered the memoranda recently filed by the parties on three discovery issues. Docs. 3306, 3308. On
the first issue, the Court will require Plaintiffs' lead counsel and members of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and their clients,
to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories 1-4 (Doc. 3308-1 at 5-6) and Document Production Request 1 (as it relates to
Interrogatories 1-4) (Doc. 3308-2 at 4). The Court concludes that these requests are relevant to the defense and proportional to
the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiffs have placed and will continue to place much emphasis on the FDA letters,
and information regarding Plaintiffs' role in securing those letters or otherwise influencing the FDA's actions is plainly relevant
to the defense. The Court does not agree that these discovery requests are prohibited by CMO 5 (Doc. 927) or CMO 11 (Doc.
1662). Plaintiffs cite no language in these orders that prohibits additional discovery. Plaintiffs assert that any communications
with the FDA would be hearsay, but information "need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Plaintiffs claim that their communications with the FDA are protected work product because they reveal mental impressions and
strategies of counsel, but courts have widely held that communications with government regulators that might prompt
government action that could prove beneficial in private litigation waive any work product protection. See, e.g., Reed v. Advocate
Health Care, No. 06 C 3337, 2007 WL 2225901, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2007); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Terra Nova Ins. Co., 212 F.R.D.166,
172-73 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); U.S. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 3, No. 00CIV.4763(RMB)(JCF), 2002 WL
31296430, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2002); Sidari v. Orleans Cty., No. 95-CV-7250,2000 WL 33407343, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2000);
Three Crown Ltd. P'ship v. Salomon Bros., No. 92 CIV. 3142 (RPP), 1993 WL 277182, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.July 21, 1993). The Court will
rule on the other discovery issues in separate docket entries. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9-6-16. This is a TEXT
ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC)
2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James R Condo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert B Carey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert W Boatman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Stephen O'Connor
Turner Williamson Branch

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Paul Michael Angelo
Clyde Talbot Turner
David A Domina

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sandy A Liebhard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Paul Lincoln Stoller

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Willard J Moody, Jr
Fred Thompson

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Shannon L Clark

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael William Heaviside
Leonard W Aragon

[e-mail]

Christopher A Seeger
James A Morris, Jr

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael T Gallagher

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Daly

[e-mail]

Mark R Niemeyer
Joe Kendall

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Elizabeth C Helm

Eric M Terry

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

C Lincoln Combs

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Szerlag

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John H Gomez

[e-mail]

Annesley H DeGaris
David R Ongaro
Lyn Peeples Pruitt
Anthony J Nemo
Andrew L Davick

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Elaine T Byszewski

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas P Cartmell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricia Lynn Campbell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Amanda Christine Sheridan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael Kevin Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert D Rowland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Yvonne M Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]

Wendy R Fleishman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John C Duane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald A Migliori

[e-mail]

Kara Trouslot Stubbs
Samuel J Horovitz

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles R Houssiere, III
Ellen A Presby

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Max Freeman (Terminated) [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Richard W Schulte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Les Weisbrod (Terminated)
Michael K Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Carrie R Capouellez

[e-mail]

Matthew Ramon Lopez [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Alexandra V Boone (Terminated)
Eric Davis Holland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph A Osborne, Jr
Rolf T Fiebiger

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory N McEwen
John J Driscoll

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jason P Johnston
Alex C Park

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Jacob Zonies
Don K Ledgard

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brendan J Flaherty
Kenneth W Pearson
Ahmed Samir Diab

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

T Matthew Leckman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Theodore Floyd Stokes
M Blair Clinton

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Stuart Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Marlene J Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Margaret Moses Branch
Adam Tal Funk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael B Leh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

D Todd Mathews

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Robert Boatman
Michael P McGartland
David J Hodge

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela M Higgins

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Kevin Gray

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph R Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

James Albert Montee
James P Cannon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brandee J Kowalzyk
Matthew B Lerner

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B North, Jr
Ben C Martin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas William Arbon
Taylor Tapley Daly
Julia Reed-Zaic

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Elizabeth Smith
Ramon Rossi Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Troy Alexander Brenes (Terminated)
Kevin George Lohman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Nathan Craig Van Der Veer
Richard Arthur Freese

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert M Hammers, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James Frederick Rogers

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Ryan McCarley
Michael S Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

John A Dalimonte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teresa C Toriseva

[e-mail]

Clair A Montroy, III

[e-mail]

Melissa Dorman Matthews
David B Krangle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jason T Schneider

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Calle M Mendenhall
Spencer J Pahlke
Michael A Kelly

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven James Boranian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kimberly Waters Grant

[e-mail]

Wayne Grant

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brandon L Corl

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Andres F Alonso

[e-mail]

Christopher Thomas Kirchmer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randal A Kauffman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Hadley L Matarazzo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth Riley

[e-mail]

John Pinckney Harloe, III
[e-mail]
Matthew D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Douglas Senger Saeltzer
Michael Brandon Smith
Stephen Grant Daniel
John Lacoste Langdoc
S Ann Saucer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura J Baughman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Russell W Budd

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Felecia L Stern

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew D Kinghorn

[e-mail]

Jon C Conlin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff R Gaddy

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

Sindhu Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roland Karim Tellis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard L Nations [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Rand P Nolen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Moze Cowper

[e-mail]

Daniel Seltz

[e-mail]

Monte Bond

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian A Goldstein

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David P Matthews
H Forest Horne

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaclyn L Anderson

[e-mail]

Graham B LippSmith

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Nolte Williams
Glen Elliot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kirsten McNelly Bibbes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Raymond Ongaro

[e-mail]

William B Curtis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Seth Crompton
Robin P Lourie

[e-mail]

Brian Keith Jackson
Ethan L Shaw

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J Riley
Justin W Fishback

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff Seldomridge (Terminated)
Jesse Burl Chrisp

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Erin Mielke

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David M Langevin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer A Lenze

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaime E Moss

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laurie E Kamerrer
Nathan Buttars

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan D Peck

[e-mail]

David C DeGreeff
Todd E Hilton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sherri L Plotkin

[e-mail]

Matthew David Schultz
Matthew J. McCauley
Philip Sholtz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Lynne Voght
Rick Barreca

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Lucas James Ude
J Mark Kell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr
Matthew Paul Skrabanek
Nicholas Farnolo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jacob Edward Levy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Lee White

[e-mail]

Eric Roslansky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian E Tadtman
David M Peterson
Nicholas Clevenger
Shezad Malik

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kristen K Barton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark C Aubuchon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

William M Berlowitz

[e-mail]

William Michael Loughran
Christian T Williams
Amy J Anderson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Everette Scott Verhine

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert Bruce Warner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Lynnette Simon Marshall
Kelsey Louise Stokes

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Christopher Elliott

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian Broussard Winegar
Jim Mac Perdue, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald Hamilton Kidd
M Michael Waters
Kay L Van Wey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Joshua D Christian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip J Pendergrass, Jr
Noah H Kushlefsky

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Scott Mokwa
Amorina P Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Scott E Brady

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip Bohrer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick T Fennell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard S Lewis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven Rotman

[e-mail]

Andrea Layne Stackhouse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Julie S Ferraro

[e-mail]

Dean A Goetz

[e-mail]

Jason S Morgan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Guarnieri

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael S. Werner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall John Trost

[e-mail]

Randall Troy Trost

[e-mail]

Benjamin A Bertram

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Karolina S Kulesza
Elizabeth Dudley

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Nicholas P Scarpelli, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond T Trebisacci

[e-mail]

Kevin P Polansky

[e-mail]

Michael Frederick Decker
Nathaniel Scearcy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
Braden Beard

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Ashleigh E Raso

[e-mail]

Mekel S Alvarez

[e-mail]

Betsy J Barnes

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Karen Delcambre McCarthy
Peter E Goss

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Timothy David Hedrick
Edward McCarthy, III
Joe A King, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela J Mason
Joseph D Lane

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

T Aaron Stringer

[e-mail]

Samuel Mason Wendt
David L Grebel
Michael S Kruse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Peyton P Murphy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Todd C Comeaux

[e-mail]

Henry Queener
John C Hatch
Amir M Kahana
Bill Bradley, Jr
Jeff M Edwards

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:
Aaron A Clark
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Alex Cameron Walker
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA
500 4th St. NW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Amanda Montee
Montee Law Firm
P.O. Box 127
St. Joseph, MO 64502
Andrew J Trevelise
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Anthony James Urban
Urban Law
P.O. Box 890
Pottsville, PA 17901
Brian John Perkins
Meyers & Flowers LLC
3 N 2nd St., Ste. 300
St Charles, IL 60174
Bruce S Kingsdorf
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Catherine A Faught Pollard
Quarles & Brady LLP - Milwaukee, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2040
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
Chris Johnson
Christopher Brian Watt
Reed Smith LLP - Houston, TX

811 Main St., Ste. 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Christopher J Quinn
Driscoll Firm PC
211 N Broadway, Ste. 4050
St Louis, MO 63102
Craig D Henderson
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Craig E Hilborn
Hilborn & Hilborn
999 Haynes, Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Daniel K Winters
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
David A Onstott
Murray Law Firm
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
David J Cooner
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
David J Walz
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
David W Ledyard
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard - Beamont, TX
595 Orleans, Ste. 1400
Beaumont, TX 77701
David W Zoll
Zoll Kranz & Borgess
6620 Central Ave., Ste. 100
Toledo, OH 43617
Dawn M Barrios
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Debra A Djupman
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301

Dennis P Mulvihill
Wright & Schulte - Cleveland, OH
23240 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Diana Rabeh
Reed Smith LLP - Wilmington, DE
1201 Market St., Ste. 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
E Terry Sibbernsen
Sibbernsen, Strigenz Law Firm - Omaha
1111 N 102nd Ct., Ste. 330
Omaha, NE 68114
Edward W Gerecke
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Elaine Sargeant
Elizabeth G Grimes
Law Offices of Michael A DeMayo LLP
P.O. Box 34426
Charlotte, NC 28234
Elizabeth Hosea Lemoine
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75204
Elizabeth S Fenton
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
300 Conshohocken State Rd., Ste. 570
W Conshohocken, PA 19428
Ellen Relkin
Weitz & Luxenberg PC - New York, NY
700 Broadway, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Eric J Buhr
Reed Smith LLP - Los Angeles, CA
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frederick R Hovde
Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC
Meridian Twr.
201 W 103rd St., Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Gary Robert Tulp
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101

Genevieve M Zimmerman
Zimmerman Reed PLLP - Minneapolis, MN
1100 IDS Ctr.
80 S 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Gerard C Kramer
Schmidt Ronca & Kramer PC
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Gregory D Bentley
Zonies Law LLC
1900 Wazee St., Ste.203
Denver, CO 80202
Hilary E Youngblood
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Jack Edward Urquhart
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Jacob W Plattenberger
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Jahnunnice Johnson
James P Catalano
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Nashville, TN
1 Nashville Pl.
150 4th Ave. N, Ste. 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Jamie Jean McKey
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Jane T Davis
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Charleston, SC
151 Meeting St., Ste. 600
Charleston, SC 29401
Janet Lynn White
Jennifer Ann Guidea
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
Jennifer J Hageman
Ulmer & Berne LLP - Cincinnati, OH

600 Vine St., Ste. 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Joan Anderson
Jody Lynn Rudman
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
John A Camp
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt - Miami, FL
100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
John G Mitchell
Secrest Wardle
P.O. Box 5025
Troy, MI 48007-5025
John H Allen , III
Jackson Allen & Williams LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
John J Glenn
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
John Neumann Hickey
Law Offices of John N Hickey
20 W Front St.
Media, PA 19063
Jonathan Hogins
Moody Law Firm
500 Crawford St., Ste. 200
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Jordan L Chaikin
Parker Waichman LLP - Bonita Springs, FL
27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Joshua Kincannon
4 Paragon Way, Ste. 100
Freehold, NJ 07728
Joshua A Mankoff
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Joshua D Miller
Toriseva Law
1446 National Rd.
Wheeling, WV 26003

Joshua R Johnson
Babbitt & Johnson PA
1641 Worthington Rd., Ste. 100
W Palm Beach, FL 33402
Joshua S Whitley
Smyth Whitley
BB&T Plz.
234 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 234
Charleston, SC 29492
Justin Ross Kaufman
Heard Robins Cloud LLP - Santa Fe, NM
505 Cerrillos Rd., Ste. A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Katherine Diven
Kathryn Snapka
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Kelly Elswick-Hall
Masters Law Firm
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Kevin M Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald Law Group
120 Exchange St., Ste. 200
Portland, ME 04101
Kevin M Hara
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Kevin R Martin
Martin Law Offices SC
7280 S 13th St., Ste. 102
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Lawrence R Murphy , Jr
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Louisa O Kirakosian
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mariann M Robison
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Mark A Sentenac

Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mathew R Doebler
Pribanic & Pribanic LLC
513 Court Pl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Matthew E Brown
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Matthew John Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Melanie M Atha
Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & ONeal LLP
P.O. Box 830612
Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
Michael Ockerman
Hanna Campbell & Powell
3737 Embassy Pkwy., Ste. 100
Akron, OH 44333
Michael F Marlow
Johnson Miner Marlow Woodward & Huff PLLC
P.O. Box 667
Yankton, SD 57078-0667
Michael Joseph Ryan
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Michael L Armitage
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Michael Alan Gross
Nancy June Falls
Neilli M Walsh
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Neville H Boschert
Jones WalkerWaechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427

Nevin Christopher Brownfield
Ongaro PC
50 California St., Ste. 3325
San Francisco, CA 94108
Patrick T Clendenen
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Peter C Wetherall
Wetherall Group Limited
9345 W Sunset Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Peter Thomas Anderson
Ashcraft & Gerel LLP - Alexandria, VA
4900 Seminar Rd., Ste. 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Raymond G Mullady , Jr
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Washington, DC
101 Constitution Ave. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20001
Raymond Joseph Kramer , III
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Rhett A McSweeney
McSweeney Langevin LLC
2116 2nd Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Richard A Zappa
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard Allen Cohn
Aitken Aitken Cohn
P.O. Box 2555
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard E Vollertsen
Atkinson Conway & Gagnon Incorporated
420 L St., Ste. 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Richard J Schicker
Schicker Law Firm
2809 S 160th St., Ste. 207
Omaha, NE 68130
Ricky L Boren
Hill Boren
P.O. Box 3539

Jackson, TN 38303-0539
Robert Diemer
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Robert R Hatten
Patten Wornom Hatten Diamonstein LC
12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Robert Williams Goldwater , III
Goldwater Law Firm PC
15849 N 71st St., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Roberts Clay Milling , II
Henry Spiegel Milling LLP
950 E Paces Ferry Rd., Ste. 2450
Atlanta, GA 30326
Ruth A Horvatich
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Sanjay Ghosh
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC - Atlanta, GA
Atlantic Station
201 17th St. NW, Ste. 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Sarah Mangum(Terminated)
Shelia Sloan
Steven James Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tayjes Matthew Shah
Miller Law Firm LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Thomas Melone
Allco Renewable Energy Limited
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Thomas A Kenefick , III
Law Office of Thomas A Kenefick III
73 Chestnut St.
Springfield, MA 01103

Thomas K Herren
Herren & Adams
148 N Broadway
Lexington, KY 40507
Tiffany L Roach Martin
MNodrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA - Santa Fe, NM
P.O. Box 2168
Santa FE, NM 87103-2168
Timothy E Lengkeek
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Timothy John Freiberg
Freiberg Law Offices
4545 Springbrook Rd.
Rockford, IL 61114
Tor A Hoerman
TorHoerman Law LLC - Edwardsville, IL
101 W Vandalla St., Ste. 350
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Vickie J Traughber
Vivian M Quinn
Nixon Peabody LLP - Buffalo NY
Key Towers at Fountain Plaza
40 Fountain Plz., Ste. 500
Buffalo, NY 14202
W Bryan Smith
Morgan & Morgan PA - Memphis, TN
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
William H Carpenter
William H Carpenter Law Office Limited
P.O. Box 35070
Albuquerque, NM 87176-5070
Wilnar Jeanne Julmiste
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Zachary Logan Wool
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if
the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 9/6/2016 at 2:35 PM MST and filed on 9/6/2016
Case Name:
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Filer:
Document Number: 3313(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER. On the second discovery issue (see Doc. 3312), the Court will not require Plaintiffs to produce information regarding
their communications with NBC or other media outlets. The Court reaches this conclusion because of Plaintiffs' assurance that
the NBC news stories will not be used at trial: "Plaintiffs concur with Defendants that news stories published by NBC or other
media outlets are not admissible. In light of this recognition..., Defendants have no argument as to why communications by
Plaintiffs' counsel with NBC (if any) are relevant." Doc. 3306 at 4. The Court views this statement by Plaintiffs' lead counsel as
binding in all of the cases in this MDL. As a result, stories by NBC news or other media outlets will not be admissible at trial, and
discovery regarding those stories therefore does not seek relevant information. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9-6-16.
This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF documentassociated with this entry. (DGC)
2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James R Condo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert B Carey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert W Boatman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Stephen O'Connor
Turner Williamson Branch
Joseph Paul Michael Angelo
Clyde Talbot Turner
David A Domina
Sandy A Liebhard
Paul Lincoln Stoller

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Willard J Moody, Jr
Fred Thompson

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Shannon L Clark

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael William Heaviside
Leonard W Aragon

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Elizabeth C Helm

[e-mail]

Christopher A Seeger
James A Morris, Jr

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Daly

[e-mail]

Mark R Niemeyer
Joe Kendall

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael T Gallagher
Eric M Terry

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

C Lincoln Combs

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Szerlag

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John H Gomez

[e-mail]

Annesley H DeGaris
David R Ongaro

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Lyn Peeples Pruitt
Anthony J Nemo

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Andrew L Davick

[e-mail]

Elaine T Byszewski

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas P Cartmell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricia Lynn Campbell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Amanda Christine Sheridan
Michael Kevin Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert D Rowland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Yvonne M Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]

Wendy R Fleishman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John C Duane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald A Migliori

[e-mail]

Kara Trouslot Stubbs
Samuel J Horovitz

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles R Houssiere, III
Ellen A Presby

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Max Freeman (Terminated) [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Richard W Schulte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Les Weisbrod (Terminated)
Michael K Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Carrie R Capouellez

[e-mail]

Matthew Ramon Lopez [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Alexandra V Boone (Terminated)
Eric Davis Holland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph A Osborne, Jr
Rolf T Fiebiger

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory N McEwen
John J Driscoll

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jason P Johnston
Alex C Park

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Jacob Zonies
Don K Ledgard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brendan J Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth W Pearson
Ahmed Samir Diab

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

T Matthew Leckman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Theodore Floyd Stokes
M Blair Clinton
Stuart Goldenberg

[e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Marlene J Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Margaret Moses Branch
Adam Tal Funk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael B Leh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

D Todd Mathews

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Robert Boatman
Michael P McGartland
David J Hodge

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela M Higgins

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Kevin Gray

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph R Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

James Albert Montee
James P Cannon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brandee J Kowalzyk
Matthew B Lerner

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B North, Jr
Ben C Martin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas William Arbon
Taylor Tapley Daly
Julia Reed-Zaic

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Elizabeth Smith
Ramon Rossi Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Troy Alexander Brenes (Terminated)
Kevin George Lohman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Nathan Craig Van Der Veer
Richard Arthur Freese

James Frederick Rogers
Matthew Ryan McCarley

John A Dalimonte

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert M Hammers, Jr

Michael S Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teresa C Toriseva

[e-mail]

Clair A Montroy, III

[e-mail]

Melissa Dorman Matthews
David B Krangle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jason T Schneider

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Calle M Mendenhall
Spencer J Pahlke

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael A Kelly

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven James Boranian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kimberly Waters Grant

[e-mail]

Wayne Grant

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brandon L Corl

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Andres F Alonso

[e-mail]

Christopher Thomas Kirchmer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randal A Kauffman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Hadley L Matarazzo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth Riley

[e-mail]

John Pinckney Harloe, III
[e-mail]
Matthew D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Douglas Senger Saeltzer
Michael Brandon Smith
Stephen Grant Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura J Baughman
Russell W Budd

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John Lacoste Langdoc
S Ann Saucer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Felecia L Stern

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew D Kinghorn

[e-mail]

Jon C Conlin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff R Gaddy

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

Sindhu Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roland Karim Tellis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard L Nations [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Rand P Nolen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Moze Cowper

[e-mail]

Daniel Seltz

[e-mail]

Monte Bond

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian A Goldstein

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David P Matthews
H Forest Horne

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaclyn L Anderson

[e-mail]

Graham B LippSmith

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Nolte Williams
Glen Elliot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kirsten McNelly Bibbes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Raymond Ongaro

[e-mail]

William B Curtis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Seth Crompton
Robin P Lourie

[e-mail]

Brian Keith Jackson
Ethan L Shaw

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J Riley

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Justin W Fishback

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff Seldomridge (Terminated)
Jesse Burl Chrisp
Melissa Erin Mielke
David M Langevin
Jennifer A Lenze

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaime E Moss

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laurie E Kamerrer
Nathan Buttars

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan D Peck

[e-mail]

David C DeGreeff
Todd E Hilton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sherri L Plotkin

[e-mail]

Matthew David Schultz

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J. McCauley
Philip Sholtz

[e-mail]

Lucas James Ude
J Mark Kell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Lynne Voght
Rick Barreca

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr
Matthew Paul Skrabanek
Nicholas Farnolo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jacob Edward Levy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Lee White

[e-mail]

Eric Roslansky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian E Tadtman

[e-mail]

David M Peterson

[e-mail]

Nicholas Clevenger
Shezad Malik

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kristen K Barton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark C Aubuchon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

William M Berlowitz

[e-mail]

William Michael Loughran
Christian T Williams
Amy J Anderson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Everette Scott Verhine

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert Bruce Warner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Lynnette Simon Marshall
Kelsey Louise Stokes

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Christopher Elliott

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian Broussard Winegar
Jim Mac Perdue, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald Hamilton Kidd
M Michael Waters
Kay L Van Wey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Joshua D Christian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip J Pendergrass, Jr
Noah H Kushlefsky

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Scott Mokwa
Amorina P Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Scott E Brady

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip Bohrer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick T Fennell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard S Lewis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven Rotman

[e-mail]

Andrea Layne Stackhouse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Julie S Ferraro

[e-mail]

Dean A Goetz

[e-mail]

Jason S Morgan
David J Guarnieri

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael S. Werner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall John Trost

[e-mail]

Randall Troy Trost

[e-mail]

Benjamin A Bertram

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Karolina S Kulesza
Elizabeth Dudley

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Nicholas P Scarpelli, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond T Trebisacci

[e-mail]

Kevin P Polansky

[e-mail]

Michael Frederick Decker
Nathaniel Scearcy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
Braden Beard

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Ashleigh E Raso

[e-mail]

Mekel S Alvarez

[e-mail]

Betsy J Barnes

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Karen Delcambre McCarthy
Peter E Goss

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Timothy David Hedrick
Edward McCarthy, III
Joe A King, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela J Mason

[e-mail]

Joseph D Lane

[e-mail]

T Aaron Stringer

[e-mail]

Samuel Mason Wendt
David L Grebel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Michael S Kruse

[e-mail]

Peyton P Murphy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Todd C Comeaux

[e-mail]

Henry Queener
John C Hatch
Amir M Kahana
Bill Bradley, Jr
Jeff M Edwards

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:
Aaron A Clark
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Alex Cameron Walker
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA
500 4th St. NW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Amanda Montee
Montee Law Firm
P.O. Box 127
St. Joseph, MO 64502
Andrew J Trevelise
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Anthony James Urban
Urban Law
P.O. Box 890
Pottsville, PA 17901
Brian John Perkins
Meyers & Flowers LLC
3 N 2nd St., Ste. 300
St Charles, IL 60174
Bruce S Kingsdorf
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Catherine A Faught Pollard
Quarles & Brady LLP - Milwaukee, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2040
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
Chris Johnson
Christopher Brian Watt
Reed Smith LLP - Houston, TX
811 Main St., Ste. 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Christopher J Quinn
Driscoll Firm PC
211 N Broadway, Ste. 4050
St Louis, MO 63102
Craig D Henderson
Snapka Law Firm

P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Craig E Hilborn
Hilborn & Hilborn
999 Haynes, Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Daniel K Winters
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
David A Onstott
Murray Law Firm
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
David J Cooner
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
David J Walz
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
David W Ledyard
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard - Beamont, TX
595 Orleans, Ste. 1400
Beaumont, TX 77701
David W Zoll
Zoll Kranz & Borgess
6620 Central Ave., Ste. 100
Toledo, OH 43617
Dawn M Barrios
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Debra A Djupman
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Dennis P Mulvihill
Wright & Schulte - Cleveland, OH
23240 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Diana Rabeh
Reed Smith LLP - Wilmington, DE
1201 Market St., Ste. 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801

E Terry Sibbernsen
Sibbernsen, Strigenz Law Firm - Omaha
1111 N 102nd Ct., Ste. 330
Omaha, NE 68114
Edward W Gerecke
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Elaine Sargeant
Elizabeth G Grimes
Law Offices of Michael A DeMayo LLP
P.O. Box 34426
Charlotte, NC 28234
Elizabeth Hosea Lemoine
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75204
Elizabeth S Fenton
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
300 Conshohocken State Rd., Ste. 570
W Conshohocken, PA 19428
Ellen Relkin
Weitz & Luxenberg PC - New York, NY
700 Broadway, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Eric J Buhr
Reed Smith LLP - Los Angeles, CA
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frederick R Hovde
Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC
Meridian Twr.
201 W 103rd St., Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Gary Robert Tulp
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
Genevieve M Zimmerman
Zimmerman Reed PLLP - Minneapolis, MN
1100 IDS Ctr.
80 S 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Gerard C Kramer
Schmidt Ronca & Kramer PC
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Gregory D Bentley
Zonies Law LLC
1900 Wazee St., Ste.203
Denver, CO 80202
Hilary E Youngblood
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Jack Edward Urquhart
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Jacob W Plattenberger
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Jahnunnice Johnson
James P Catalano
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Nashville, TN
1 Nashville Pl.
150 4th Ave. N, Ste. 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Jamie Jean McKey
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Jane T Davis
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Charleston, SC
151 Meeting St., Ste. 600
Charleston, SC 29401
Janet Lynn White
Jennifer Ann Guidea
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
Jennifer J Hageman
Ulmer & Berne LLP - Cincinnati, OH
600 Vine St., Ste. 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Joan Anderson
Jody Lynn Rudman
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204

John A Camp
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt - Miami, FL
100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
John G Mitchell
Secrest Wardle
P.O. Box 5025
Troy, MI 48007-5025
John H Allen , III
Jackson Allen & Williams LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
John J Glenn
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
John Neumann Hickey
Law Offices of John N Hickey
20 W Front St.
Media, PA 19063
Jonathan Hogins
Moody Law Firm
500 Crawford St., Ste. 200
Portsmouth, VA 23704
Jordan L Chaikin
Parker Waichman LLP - Bonita Springs, FL
27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Joshua Kincannon
4 Paragon Way, Ste. 100
Freehold, NJ 07728
Joshua A Mankoff
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Joshua D Miller
Toriseva Law
1446 National Rd.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Joshua R Johnson
Babbitt & Johnson PA
1641 Worthington Rd., Ste. 100
W Palm Beach, FL 33402
Joshua S Whitley
Smyth Whitley
BB&T Plz.
234 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 234
Charleston, SC 29492

Justin Ross Kaufman
Heard Robins Cloud LLP - Santa Fe, NM
505 Cerrillos Rd., Ste. A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Katherine Diven
Kathryn Snapka
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Kelly Elswick-Hall
Masters Law Firm
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Kevin M Fitzgerald
Fitzgerald Law Group
120 Exchange St., Ste. 200
Portland, ME 04101
Kevin M Hara
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Kevin R Martin
Martin Law Offices SC
7280 S 13th St., Ste. 102
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Lawrence R Murphy , Jr
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Louisa O Kirakosian
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mariann M Robison
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Mark A Sentenac
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mathew R Doebler
Pribanic & Pribanic LLC
513 Court Pl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Matthew E Brown

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Matthew John Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Melanie M Atha
Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & ONeal LLP
P.O. Box 830612
Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
Michael Ockerman
Hanna Campbell & Powell
3737 Embassy Pkwy., Ste. 100
Akron, OH 44333
Michael F Marlow
Johnson Miner Marlow Woodward & Huff PLLC
P.O. Box 667
Yankton, SD 57078-0667
Michael Joseph Ryan
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Michael L Armitage
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Michael Alan Gross
Nancy June Falls
Neilli M Walsh
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Neville H Boschert
Jones WalkerWaechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427
Nevin Christopher Brownfield
Ongaro PC
50 California St., Ste. 3325
San Francisco, CA 94108
Patrick T Clendenen
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109

Peter C Wetherall
Wetherall Group Limited
9345 W Sunset Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Peter Thomas Anderson
Ashcraft & Gerel LLP - Alexandria, VA
4900 Seminar Rd., Ste. 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Raymond G Mullady , Jr
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Washington, DC
101 Constitution Ave. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20001
Raymond Joseph Kramer , III
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Rhett A McSweeney
McSweeney Langevin LLC
2116 2nd Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Richard A Zappa
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard Allen Cohn
Aitken Aitken Cohn
P.O. Box 2555
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard E Vollertsen
Atkinson Conway & Gagnon Incorporated
420 L St., Ste. 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Richard J Schicker
Schicker Law Firm
2809 S 160th St., Ste. 207
Omaha, NE 68130
Ricky L Boren
Hill Boren
P.O. Box 3539
Jackson, TN 38303-0539
Robert Diemer
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Robert R Hatten
Patten Wornom Hatten Diamonstein LC
12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300

Newport News, VA 23602
Robert Williams Goldwater , III
Goldwater Law Firm PC
15849 N 71st St., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Roberts Clay Milling , II
Henry Spiegel Milling LLP
950 E Paces Ferry Rd., Ste. 2450
Atlanta, GA 30326
Ruth A Horvatich
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Sanjay Ghosh
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC - Atlanta, GA
Atlantic Station
201 17th St. NW, Ste. 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Sarah Mangum(Terminated)
Shelia Sloan
Steven James Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tayjes Matthew Shah
Miller Law Firm LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Thomas Melone
Allco Renewable Energy Limited
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Thomas A Kenefick , III
Law Office of Thomas A Kenefick III
73 Chestnut St.
Springfield, MA 01103
Thomas K Herren
Herren & Adams
148 N Broadway
Lexington, KY 40507
Tiffany L Roach Martin
MNodrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA - Santa Fe, NM
P.O. Box 2168
Santa FE, NM 87103-2168

Timothy E Lengkeek
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Timothy John Freiberg
Freiberg Law Offices
4545 Springbrook Rd.
Rockford, IL 61114
Tor A Hoerman
TorHoerman Law LLC - Edwardsville, IL
101 W Vandalla St., Ste. 350
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Vickie J Traughber
Vivian M Quinn
Nixon Peabody LLP - Buffalo NY
Key Towers at Fountain Plaza
40 Fountain Plz., Ste. 500
Buffalo, NY 14202
W Bryan Smith
Morgan & Morgan PA - Memphis, TN
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
William H Carpenter
William H Carpenter Law Office Limited
P.O. Box 35070
Albuquerque, NM 87176-5070
Wilnar Jeanne Julmiste
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Zachary Logan Wool
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990267534001529-L_1_0-1

Page 1 of 2

ATTYADD,LEAD,MULTI-DISTRICT,PROTO,REMAND,STD

U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15-md-02641-DGC

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Assigned to: Judge David G Campbell
Case in other court: Ninth Circuit, 16-16163
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

Date Filed
09/06/2016

#

Date Filed: 08/17/2015
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 365 Personal Injury: Prod.
Liability
Jurisdiction: Diversity

Docket Text

3314 ORDER. On the third discovery issue (see Doc. 3312), the Court will not require
Plaintiffs to produce information regarding third-party funding arrangements. The Court
cannot conclude that information regarding such arrangements is relevant to the defense
of this case. In arguing to the contrary, Defendants cite to examples of funding
arrangements in other cases and speculate that "if" such arrangements exist here, then
Plaintiffs' counsel "may not represent the best interests of the plaintiffs, may represent
the plaintiffs in a way they otherwise may not, or may not negotiate settlement in good
faith, or may request unreasonably high damages." Doc. 3308 at 7-8. Defendants'
argument that "if" a condition exists it "may" produce a particular result amounts to
nothing more than conjecture. Defendants present nothing concrete -- nothing specific to
this case -- that shows such discovery is relevant to a claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Defendants will be permitted to conduct relevant damages discovery in
individual cases. The Court notes, by the way, that Plaintiffs argue this discovery is not
"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Doc. 3306 at 5.
That phrase, which never was intended to define the scope of discovery under Rule 26
(see 2015 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 26), was eliminated from Rule 26 on
December 1, 2015. One other comment. The Court has been impressed with the
professionalism of counsel on both sides of this case. Plaintiffs' memorandum went a bit
too far in its accusations ("conveniently ignore," "witch hunt," "grasping theories"). The
Court encourages both sides to maintain the professional approach and tone that have, to
everyone's benefit, characterized this litigation thus far. Signed by Judge David G
Campbell on 9-6-16. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document
associated with this entry. (DGC) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/17/2018 10:14:01
PACER
Login:

nmrs0003:4310666:0

Description: Docket Report

Client
Code:

000389/08373-mb13

Search
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Criteria: Starting with document:

https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?990267534001529-L_1_0-1

3314 Ending with
document: 3314
Billable
Pages:

2

Cost:

0.20

Page 2 of 2

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MD 15-02641
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 17
(Stipulation and Order Concerning
Protective Order and Redactions of
Material from Defendants’ Expedited
ESI Production)

13
14

To expedite document production of ESI from Defendants, the parties, through

15

their respective counsel, have agreed to a primarily “no-eyes-on” document production as

16

to relevancy while still performing a privilege review for ESI Defendants will be

17

producing subsequent to this Order. That procedure requires certain changes to protection

18

and requirements in the protective order (Doc. 269) and Case Management Order No. 7

19

and corresponding Exhibit A (Doc. 401) for ESI produced pursuant to this process. To the

20

extent that any of the below provisions are inconsistent with either the protective order

21

(Doc. 269) or Case Management Order No. 7 and corresponding Exhibit A (Doc. 401), the

22

below provisions shall control all documents produced pursuant to this Order.

23

THEREFORE, IT ORDERED as follows:

24

The parties have agreed on an ESI production process (the “Process”). All ESI

25
26
27
28

produced by Bard pursuant to the Process will be subject to the following terms:

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 6

1

1.

At the time of production, Bard will identify the documents or ESI as being

2

produced pursuant to the Process and subject to the restrictions of this Case Management

3

Order (“CMO”).

4

2.

Plaintiffs will maintain all documents and ESI produced pursuant to the

5

Process as confidential and not use the documents or ESI for any purpose outside of their

6

own review and analysis until they have complied with this CMO.

7

3.

Until Plaintiffs identify the documents or ESI for use, access to the

8

documents and ESI is limited to attorneys and staff at PLC firms and their consultants

9

who execute the attached addendum and agree to be subject to the restrictions of this

10
11

CMO.
4.

If Plaintiffs intend to use a document or ESI identified by Defendants as

12

produced pursuant to the Process for any purpose other than as set forth in paragraph 2

13

above, they shall notify Defendants in writing (or by email) of their intent to use the

14

document or ESI, identifying the document or ESI by production Bates number(s). Once

15

Plaintiffs have done so, the document or ESI shall be deemed conditionally designated as

16

“Confidential” under the protective order (Doc. 269) and subject to the restrictions of that

17

Order (including filing under seal). Such designation shall not negate the additional

18

protections and procedures afforded by Paragraphs 6, 7, 9, and 10 of this CMO.

19

5.

Defendants shall thereafter have 30 days to affirmatively designate the

20

document or ESI as Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order (doc. 269) in which case

21

it will be treated as Confidential under that Order as of the date of initial production. Such

22

designation may be made by separate writing that identifies the document or ESI by

23

production Bates number(s). Plaintiffs may challenge such confidentiality designations in

24

accordance with the terms of the Protective Order (doc. 269).

25

6.

Defendants shall have the right to identify any document, file, or other form

26

of ESI produced pursuant to the Process as both being irrelevant to the matters in dispute

27

in this MDL and containing trade secret or other confidential information and to “claw

28

back” such ESI or documents from the production. After Plaintiffs identify a particular
2

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 6

1

document, file, or other ESI for intended use pursuant to Paragraph 4, Defendants shall

2

have 30 days to seek claw back of the particular document pursuant to this paragraph; this

3

latter requirement does not apply to documents, files, and other ESI produced pursuant to

4

the Process that have not been identified for use by Plaintiffs pursuant to Paragraph 4,

5

which may be clawed back at any time.

6

7.

Defendants shall have the right to identify any such documents or ESI as

7

subject to the requirements of CMO No. 7 (Doc. 401) and to require the redaction of the

8

information set forth in that Order; in that event, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a

9

redacted version of the subject documents or ESI with the same production Bates

10

number(s) and Plaintiffs shall destroy any unredacted copies or versions of the document

11

that they possess.

12

8.

Plaintiffs shall have the right to challenge any designation by Defendants

13

under paragraphs 6 or 7 by submission of the ESI or document to the Court under seal and

14

any filings that refer to the protected substance of the ESI or document must, likewise, be

15

made under seal.

16

9.

17

Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) protection for privileged information

produced pursuant to the Process:

18

a. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), production or disclosure

19

pursuant to the Process of the substance or content of documents, materials,

20

or other information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-

21

product protection, or any other privilege or protection shall not amount to

22

waiver of the privilege and/or protection in this MDL, or in any other

23

federal or state proceeding.

24

b. If Plaintiffs identify a document, material, or other information in the

25

documents and ESI produced pursuant to the Process that reasonably

26

appears to be protected by any privilege or other protection, they shall

27

promptly notify Defendants in writing or email.

28

determine that the document, material, or other information is privileged or
3

If the Defendants

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 6

1

otherwise protected, it shall make such an assertion in writing within 30

2

days of receipt of notification. Once the privilege or protection is asserted,

3

the parties shall follow the process discussed in Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Failure to assert the privilege or protection within

5

30 days of receipt of notification shall amount to waiver of any privilege or

6

protection only of the document, material, or other information identified in

7

the notification, subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a).

8

c. For any document, material, or other information produced or disclosed

9

during discovery, and not identified pursuant to section (b) of this

10

Paragraph, Defendants shall assert any claim of privilege or protection in

11

writing (including by email) within 30 days after Plaintiffs identify the

12

material for use pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this CMO. Once the privilege or

13

protection is asserted, the parties shall follow the process discussed in

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Failure to assert the privilege

15

or protection shall amount to waiver of the privilege or protection only of

16

the document, material, or other information used, subject to Federal Rule of

17

Evidence 502(a).

18

d. Unless waived under sections (b) or (c), at any time, a party that produces

19

any document, material, or other information that it believes to be protected

20

by the attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or any other

21

privilege or protection may assert the privilege or protection in writing.

22

Once the privilege or protection is asserted in writing, the parties shall

23

follow the process discussed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

24

26(b)(5)(B).

25

10.

To the extent that the documents or ESI produced pursuant to the Process

26

contain any adverse event reporter names or information of a patient who is not a party to

27

this litigation and which would otherwise be redacted in accordance with CMO No. 7,

28

Plaintiffs and their counsel and agents shall not contact the patient or reporter of an
4

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 6

1

adverse event unless and until the parties go through the processes outlined in Paragraphs

2

6 and 8 of this CMO with respect to the redaction of information and this Court

3

determines the information is not subject to redaction.

4

Dated this 13th day of September, 2016.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3372 Filed 09/14/16 Page 6 of 6

1

EXHIBIT A

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

4
5

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY

6
7
8
9

I, ______________________ (Name), have been given and have read a copy of the

10

Case Management Order No. __, dated _______________, 2016 in the case of MDL No.

11

2641, pending in the United States District Court District of Arizona. I understand and

12

will strictly adhere to the contents of said Order. I understand that produced material

13

disclosed to me is subject to the Order of this Court and that I am prohibited from

14

copying, disclosing, or otherwise using such material except as provided by said court

15

Order. I understand that my unauthorized disclosure of any information protected by the

16

Order or contact of a patient or reporter of an adverse event in violation of the Order may

17

constitute contempt of court and I agree to be personally subject to the jurisdiction of this

18

Court for the purpose of enforcing my obligations under this Agreement, the Order, and

19

any contempt proceeding that may be instituted for my violation of the terms of this

20

Acknowledgment and the Order. I also understand that my signature on this “Agreement

21

to Maintain Confidentiality”, indicating my agreement to be bound by the terms of the

22

Case Management Order, is required before I may be allowed to receive and review any

23

produced document and materials that are produced pursuant to the Process as set forth in

24

the Case Management Order.

25
26
27

Date: _______________

Print Signature:_________________________
Signature:_____________________________

28
6

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 7

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
ORDER

10
11
12
13

The Court held a fifth case management conference with the parties on

14

August 23, 2016. In preparation for the conference, the parties provided a joint status

15

report that identified a number of issues for discussion. Doc. 3102. The report noted that

16

the parties disagree on the discoverability of certain electronically stored information

17

(“ESI”) generated by foreign entities (subsidiaries or divisions of Defendant C.R. Bard)

18

that sell IVC filters abroad. Plaintiffs seek discovery of communications between the

19

foreign entities and foreign regulatory bodies regarding the IVC filters at issue in this

20

case. Doc. 3264 at 2. The Court discussed this topic at some length during the status

21

conference on August 23, 2016, and directed the parties to provide focused briefing.

22

Each side has now filed a memorandum addressing this issue. Docs. 3309, 3326. For the

23

reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request for this discovery.

24

I.

25
26
27
28

New Legal Standards Governing the Scope of Discovery.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was amended on

December 1, 2015. The new rule defines the scope of permissible discovery as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
amount in controversy, the party’s access to relevant information, the

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 7

1
2
3

party’s resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,
and whether the burden and expense of the proposed discovery outweighs
its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

4

A.

Relevancy.

5

To be discoverable under the first part of this test, information must be “relevant

6

to any party’s claim or defense.” Id. This language has not changed from the previous

7

version of Rule 26(b)(1).

8

Before the 2015 amendments, Rule 26(b)(1) also provided that inadmissible

9

evidence was discoverable if it “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

10

admissible evidence.” Some courts – and many lawyers – used this language to define

11

the scope of discovery. See, e.g., Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625,

12

635 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Relevant information for purposes of discovery is information

13

‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”) (quoting Brown

14

Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)).

15

This phrase was eliminated by the 2015 amendments and replaced with a more

16

direct declaration of the phrase’s original intent: “Information within this scope of

17

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

26(b)(1). The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided this

19

explanation for the deletion:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The former provision for discovery of relevant but inadmissible
information that appears “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence” is also deleted. The phrase has been used by some,
incorrectly, to define the scope of discovery. As the Committee Note to the
2000 amendments observed, use of the “reasonably calculated” phrase to
define the scope of discovery “might swallow any other limitation on the
scope of discovery.” The 2000 amendments sought to prevent such misuse
by adding the word “relevant” at the beginning of the sentence, making
clear that “relevant” means within the scope of discovery as defined in this
subdivision . . . .” The “reasonably calculated” phrase has continued to
create problems, however, and is removed by these amendments.
Rule 26, Advis. Comm. Notes for 2015 Amends.

27

The 2015 amendments thus eliminated the “reasonably calculated” phrase as a

28

definition for the scope of permissible discovery. Despite this clear change, many courts

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 7

1

continue to use the phrase. Old habits die hard.1 In this circuit, courts cite two Ninth

2

Circuit cases – Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir.

3

2005), and Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)

4

– for the proposition that information is relevant for purposes of Rule 26(b)(1) if it is

5

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”2 But these cases,

6

and others like them, simply applied the earlier version of Rule 26(b)(1).

7

Amended Rule 26(b)(1) was adopted pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, 28

8

U.S.C. § 2072, et. seq. That statute provides that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules

9

shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.” Id., § 2072(b).

10

Thus, just as a statute could effectively overrule cases applying a former legal standard,

11

the 2015 amendment effectively abrogated cases applying a prior version of Rule

12

26(b)(1). The test going forward is whether evidence is “relevant to any party’s claim or

13

defense,” not whether it is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.”

14

B.

15

The 2015 amendments also added proportionality as a requirement for permissible

16

discovery. Relevancy alone is no longer sufficient – discovery must also be proportional

17

to the needs of the case. The Advisory Committee Note makes clear, however, that the

18

amendment does not place the burden of proving proportionality on the party seeking

Proportionality.

19
1

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Last month alone, seven cases relied on the “reasonably calculated” language to
define the scope of permissible discovery. See Fastvdo LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No.
16-CV-385-H (WVG), 2016 WL 4542747, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2016); Sierra Club
v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. C13-0967-JCC, 2016 WL 4528452, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 30,
2016); Shell v. Ohio Family Rights, No. 1:15-CV-1757, 2016 WL 4523830, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio Aug. 29, 2016); Arrow Enter. Computing Sols., Inc. v. BlueAlly, LLC, No. 5:15-CV00037-FL, 2016 WL 4287929, at *1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2016); Ecomission Sols., LLC v.
CTS Holdings, Inc., No. MISC. 16-1793 (EGS), 2016 WL 4506974, at *1 (D.D.C.
Aug. 26, 2016); Clouser v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC, No. CV 3:15-33, 2016
WL 4223755, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2016); Scott Hutchinson Enters., Inc. v. Cranberry
Pipeline Corp., No. 3:15-CV-13415, 2016 WL 4203555, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 9,
2016). Several other cases cited the language as though it were still part of Rule 26(b)(1).
See Fairley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 15-462, 2016 WL 4418799, at *2 (E.D. La.
Aug. 19, 2016); Kuczak v. City of Trotwood, Ohio, No. 3:13-CV-101, 2016 WL 4500715,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 26, 2016); Kubik v. Cent. Michigan Univ. Bd. of Trustees, No. 15CV-12055, 2016 WL 4425174, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2016).
2

See Fastvdo, 2016 WL 4542747, at *2 (quoting Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at
635); Sierra Club, 2016 WL 4528452, at *1 (quoting Brown Bag, 960 F.2d at 1470).
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 7

1

discovery. The amendment “does not change the existing responsibilities of the court and

2

the parties to consider proportionality, and the change does not place on the party seeking

3

discovery the burden addressing all proportionality considerations.” Rule 26, Advis.

4

Comm. Notes for 2015 Amends. Rather, “[t]he parties and the court have a collective

5

responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving

6

discovery disputes.” Id.

7
8

The inquiry to be conducted under the proportionality requirement, therefore,
requires input from both sides. As the Advisory Committee explained:

9

A party claiming undue burden or expense ordinarily has far better
information – perhaps the only information – with respect to that part of the
determination. A party claiming that a request is important to resolve the
issues should be able to explain the ways in which the underlying
information bears on the issues as that party understands them. The court’s
responsibility, using all the information provided by the parties, is to
consider these and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific
determination of the appropriate scope of discovery.

10
11
12
13
14

Id. The Court therefore will look to evidence and arguments from both sides in deciding

15

whether discovery from the Bard foreign entities is permitted under Rule 26.

16

II.

Analysis.

17

A.

18

From the information provided by the parties, it appears that most of Defendants’

19

regulatory communications, including communications with foreign regulators, are

20

generated by Defendants’ United States operations, which have been and continue to be

21

subject to extensive discovery. Robert Carr, the key Bard witness on this issue, explained

22

that the relevant Bard division within the United States “handles the regulatory burden”

23

for a particular product. Doc. 3311-1 at 4. The division supplies “all the required

24

documentation” to foreign Bard entities, and the foreign entities then share that

25

information with foreign regulators. Id. Some foreign entities have their own regulatory

26

staff, but Bard’s United States operations “supply all the pertinent information, answer all

27

the questions. They provide the documentation and translations back and forth.” Id. at

28

11.

Relevancy.

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 5 of 7

1

Carr further explained that there are regulatory persons on every Bard product

2

development team, and that “they determine the potential regulatory pathway for a

3

product being developed early on.” Id. at 13. “[T]hroughout the project, they identify

4

the required standards that need to be met in countries that we know we’re going to go to,

5

because testing requirements are different in different countries.” Id. at 14. “And then at

6

the end of the project they would put together the supporting documentation to allow

7

themselves to file in America and . . . the other international regulatory groups to file in

8

their particular countries using our data. And they would liaise with them throughout that

9

approval process globally.” Id. at 14.

10

Documents submitted by the parties support Bard’s assertion that regulatory

11

communications are largely controlled from within the United States. For example,

12

Exhibit F to Defendants’ memorandum is an email chain showing Bard employees within

13

the United States compiling information to respond to inquiries made by a regulator in

14

Great Britain. Doc. 3313-7.

15

It also appears, however, that employees in foreign entities sometimes engage in

16

their own communications with foreign regulators. Mr. Carr provided this testimony

17

about when Bard’s foreign personnel could have communications with foreign regulators

18

that are different from the communications prepared in the United States:

19

Q.

There’s not a single place where they would be different?

20

A.

If the indication for use, which is a regulatory term, defines how and
where a product can be used, how a filter can be used, if it happens
to have a different indication for use in a different country, then
that’s possible. And so they would be able to change that
information. Japan is a common example of that.

23

Q.

Okay.

24

A.

They will change wording and things like that, that’s based on the
Japanese regulatory approval, not necessarily marketing effort.

Q.

Sure. They have to get a change in an IFU approved by BPV or
C.R. Bard before they can do it?

A.

No, they approve it at their level.

21
22

25
26
27
28

Doc. 3266 at 10-11.

-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 6 of 7

1

This exchange suggests that employees in foreign Bard entities at least sometimes

2

communicate with foreign regulators on their own. This fact is confirmed by Exhibit 4 to

3

Plaintiffs’ memorandum. It is a communication from David Marshall, an employee of

4

Bard in Great Britain, recounting communications he had with British regulators

5

regarding Bard filters. Doc. 3266 at 13.

6

For purposes of this discovery dispute, the Court concludes that most of the

7

communications with foreign regulators originate in the United States and thus will be

8

captured by the ESI searches currently underway. There do appear, however, to be some

9

communications that originate abroad and may not be captured in the current searches.

10

The Court also finds, however, that the relevancy of these communications is

11

uncertain for at least two reasons. First, there are no Plaintiffs in this MDL from foreign

12

countries. All plaintiffs received their Bard filters and allegedly were injured in the

13

United States. Second, Plaintiffs seek communications with foreign regulators for a

14

narrow purpose – to determine if any of those communications have been inconsistent

15

with Defendants’ communications with American regulators. It is inconsistency that

16

Plaintiff’s seek to discover.

17

Courts generally recognize that relevancy for purposes of discovery is broader

18

than relevancy for purposes of trial. Even still, the Court concludes that the discovery

19

sought by Plaintiffs is only marginally relevant. With no foreign-based Plaintiffs, and

20

mere conjecture that communications between foreign entities and foreign regulators

21

might be inconsistent with Defendants’ communications with American regulators, the

22

discovery appears to be only potentially relevant – more hope than likelihood.

23

B.

24

Rule 26(b)(1) identifies several factors to be considered in addressing

25

proportionality. Plaintiffs have addressed some of those factors in the evidence cited

26

above. The “importance of the discovery in resolving the issues,” as the Court has

27

explained, appears marginal. The parties “relative access to relevant information” favors

28

Plaintiffs, but only in Defendants’ possession of possibly relevant information.

Proportionality.

-6-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3398 Filed 09/16/16 Page 7 of 7

1

Defendants argue that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs

2

its likely benefit, and they provide some specifics. They note that Bard has entities in

3

Canada, Korea, Australia, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Italy, Ireland, the United

4

Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Mexico, Chile, Brazil,

5

and China. Doc. 3309 at 6 n.6. Plaintiffs seek discovery of all communications these

6

entities have had with foreign regulatory authorities involving all Bard IVC filters since

7

2003. Id. To comply with Plaintiffs’ requests, Defendants assert that they would be

8

required to identify the applicable custodians from these foreign entities for the last 13

9

years, collect ESI from these custodians, and search for and identify communications

10

with foreign regulators. The Court is persuaded by these specifics that the burden of this

11

foreign discovery would be substantial.

12

Plaintiffs are engaging in substantial discovery with respect to Defendants’

13

communications with American regulators, including extensive ESI searches and

14

depositions of relevant witnesses. This discovery should capture communications with

15

foreign regulators that originate in the United States, as most appear to. The Court

16

concludes that the burden and expense of searching ESI from 18 foreign entities over a

17

13-year period outweighs the benefit of the proposed discovery – a mere possibility of

18

finding a foreign communications inconsistent with United States communication.

19

Because the proposed discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case

20

considering the factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), the Court concludes that Defendants

21

need not search the ESI of foreign Bard entities for communications with foreign

22

regulators.

23

Dated this 16th day of September, 2016.

24
25
26
27
28

-7-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3685 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 18

10
11
12
13

The Court held a sixth case management conference with the parties on

14

October 14, 2016. The conference addressed ongoing matters and issues identified in

15

Case Management Order No. 15 (Doc. 3214) and the parties’ joint report (Doc. 3636).

16

A.

Adjustment of Discovery Schedule.

17

Plaintiffs ask that the discovery schedule be extended by approximately four

18

months in light of substantial document production that has occurred in the last few

19

weeks, the need to review the documents, and the likely need for additional depositions in

20

light of the new documents. Defendants oppose the request.

21

A case management schedule entered under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil

22

Procedure “may be modified only for good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see Johnson

23

v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). Good cause exists

24

when a deadline “cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the

25

extension.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Advisory Comm. Notes (1983 Am.). Thus, “Rule 16(b)’s

26

‘good cause’ standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

27

amendment.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d

28

1271, 1294 (9th Cir. 2000). Where that party has not been diligent, the inquiry ends and

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3685 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 5

1

the motion is denied. Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.2002);

2

Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609.

3

On the basis of the discussion at the case management conference and previous

4

conferences, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in seeking

5

the production of ESI in this litigation. ESI discovery has been monitored by the Court

6

from the start of this litigation. See Docs. 249 at 2; 519 at 4-5; 1259; 1319 at 3; 2238 at

7

1; 3214 at 2. Throughout this process, it has appeared that Plaintiffs and Defendants have

8

worked with reasonable diligence to understand the location and nature of ESI and agree

9

upon search methods. Some of the parties’ progress was slowed when Defendants

10

concluded that they must change ESI vendors in August 2016. Although it is true that

11

final search terms were not arrived at until September 14, 2016, the parties had agreed

12

upon and produced much ESI before that date and worked with reasonable diligence up

13

to that date.

14

Plaintiffs report that they have received production of more than 800,000

15

documents in the last few weeks. Clearly, Plaintiffs are unable to complete their review

16

of these documents (totaling more than 3 million pages) by the close of discovery on

17

October 28, 2016. Plaintiffs say they need about six weeks to review the documents, and

18

then 10 to 12 weeks for depositions. The Court does not agree that this much time is

19

needed for depositions. The Court will extend the discovery schedule as follows.1 The

20

parties are advised that the Court does not intend to grant additional extensions.

21

Deadline for completing fact discovery:

February 3, 2017

22

Deadline for Plaintiffs’ expert disclosures:

March 3, 2017

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Following the case management conference, the Court concluded that review of
the documents and additional depositions could be completed in less time, and drafted
this order accordingly. The Court then received a conference call from the parties stating
that Defendants plan to produce an additional one million pages of documents tomorrow.
Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that this would delay their predictive-coding search of the
documents by one week. It also will result in additional documents to review, although,
as Defendants have noted, the production has been made without eyes-on review by
Defendants (to expedite the production, and with Plaintiffs’ consent) and therefore
includes a potentially large amount of irrelevant material. Following the conference call,
the Court decided to grant a longer extension to account for this additional production.
-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3685 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 5

1

Deadline for Defendants’ expert disclosures:

April 14, 2017

2

Deadline for rebuttal expert disclosures:

May 12, 2017

3

Deadline for expert depositions:

July 14, 2017

4

The Court notes that expert disclosures on these dates must be full and complete as

5

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C), and rebuttal expert disclosures shall be limited to

6

responding to opinions of initial experts.

7

B.

Adjustment of Bellwether Schedule.

8

Because the parties likely will be busy completing fact discovery in January, the

9

Court concludes that the bellwether schedule in CMO 11 (Doc. 1662) should be adjusted

10

slightly. The deadlines for forming Discovery Group 1 will remain as set forth in

11

CMO 11, § IV. Section V.A.2 of CMO 11 is amended as follows:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

After having met and conferred, and by April 21, 2017, the parties
shall exchange lists of six (6) proposed selections from Discovery Group 1
for bellwether plaintiffs, and order of trials. The parties will meet and
confer in an effort to agree upon a group of six (6) cases to constitute
Bellwether Group 1, which shall be done in a manner consistent with
achieving the goal of proportionate identification of representative cases. If
the parties are unable to agree on six (6) cases, the parties shall submit to
the Court, outside of the ECF system, by April 28, 2017, their proposed
lists and a memorandum in support of their selections and in opposition, if
applicable, to the opposing party’s selections. Within seven (7) business
days of such submission, the parties may submit a response to the opposing
party’s memorandum regarding selection of cases. The parties propose that
the Court then select the final group of six (6) cases to form Bellwether
Group 1.2

22

The parties should confer on the discovery to be completed between the December

23

2016 selection of Discovery Group 1 and the bellwether selection process set forth above.

24

In the Court’s view, all discovery need not be completed in every case in Discovery

25

Group 1 before the bellwether cases are selected, but enough discovery will be needed to

26
27
2

28

The Court set these new dates to fall after each side has made their initial expert
disclosures, thus ensuring that the parties can consider the other side’s major expert
opinions in making their bellwether selections.
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3685 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 5

1

ensure that the parties have a reasonably informed basis for making selections. The

2

parties should be prepared at the next case management conference to propose the nature

3

and timing of discovery to occur during this period.

4

The Court’s intention will be complete bellwether selection in early May, and set a

5

schedule that will permit all discovery, and appropriate motion practice, to be completed

6

in time to hold the first bellwether trial in the Fall of 2017. Other bellwether trials may

7

also be possible before the end of 2017.

8

C.

Depositions.

9

The Court will permit the additional depositions of Drs. Kaufman (4 hours),

10

Venbrux (3 hours), Trerotola (4 hours), and Stavropolous (4 hours). The Court concludes

11

that these doctors have information relevant to the thousand-plus cases that are now part

12

of this MDL and that could not reasonably have been inquired into during their previous,

13

shorter depositions. In scheduling these depositions, the parties should be considerate of

14

the doctors’ busy schedules. These depositions may be scheduled any time between now

15

and the new fact discovery deadline of February 3, 2017. If these doctors have filed

16

motions to quash in other districts, the parties should consider the applicability of

17

Rule 45(f). The 2013 Advisory Committee note to Rule 45(f) states that exceptional

18

circumstances – as required in one application of the provision – may exist “in order to

19

avoid disrupting the issuing court’s management of the underlying litigation, as when that

20

court has already ruled on issues presented by the motion[.]”

21

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to question

22

Dr. Lehmann in the 11 hours of deposition already completed and the Texas hearing at

23

which he testified, and will not permit his further deposition. The re-deposition of John

24

McDermott will not occur for reasons agreed upon during the case management

25

conference.

26

The Court will permit the following depositions: Kevin Boyle, Scott Randall,

27

Mike Randall, Mark Wilson, Kim Romney, Dr. Lynch, and Dr. Cohen.

28

depositions may occur between now and the February 3, 2017 deadline. The Court

-4-

These

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 3685 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 5

1

concludes that each of these witnesses has relevant information, and that their depositions

2

are proportional to the needs of this MDL.

3

D.

Special Master.

4

The Court will not appoint a special master to oversee depositions. The Court

5

does not believe that the experienced and professional counsel in this case are incapable

6

of conducting a proper deposition without supervision.

7

deposition, however, the parties should call the Court during the deposition. The Court

8

has instructed staff that the call is to be taken if at all possible. If the undersigned judge

9

is out of town in rules committee or other meetings, staff will be instructed to transfer the

10

call to the judge or arrange a time later that day for a conference call. Such out-of-town

11

calls may not be on the record. The Court will endeavor to make itself available to

12

resolve any issues that arise during depositions.

13

E.

If problems arise in any

Next Case Management Conference.

14

The Court will hold the next Case Management Conference on December 9, 2016

15

at 3:00 p.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on or before

16

December 5, 2016.

17

Dated this 14th day of October, 2016.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER NO. 17

10
11

(Stipulation and Order Concerning
Protective Order and Redactions of
Material from Defendants’ Expedited
ESI Production)

12
13
14
15

To expedite document production of ESI from Defendants, the parties, through

16

their respective counsel, have agreed to a primarily “no-eyes-on” document production as

17

to relevancy while still performing a privilege review for ESI Defendants will be

18

producing subsequent to this Order. That procedure requires certain changes to protection

19

and requirements in the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 268) and Case Management

20

Order No. 7 and corresponding Exhibit A (Doc. 401) for ESI produced pursuant to this

21

process. To the extent that any of the below provisions are inconsistent with either the

22

protective order (Doc. 268) or Case Management Order No. 7 and corresponding Exhibit

23

A (Doc. 401), the below provisions shall control all documents produced pursuant to this

24

Order.

25

This Amended Case Management Order replaces in its entirety the original Case

26

Management Order No. 17 and any inconsistent provisions in the Stipulated Protective

27

Order (Doc. 268), including the attached revised Exhibit A.THEREFORE, IT ORDERED

28

as follows:

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 6

1
2
3

The parties have agreed on an ESI production process (the “Process”). All ESI
produced by Defendants pursuant to the Process will be subject to the following terms:
1.

At the time of production, Defendants will identify the documents or ESI as

4

being produced pursuant to the Process and subject to the restrictions of this Case

5

Management Order (the “Process ESI”).

6

2.

The Process ESI shall be subject to the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc.

7

268) entered in this case and the terms of this CMO. Nothing in this CMO shall prevent

8

the use of any Process ESI in other actions brought by the plaintiff’s counsel, so long as a

9

substantially comparable protective order, including both the terms of the Stipulated

10

Protective Order (Doc. 268) and this CMO, is entered in those other actions. Paragraph 12

11

of the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 268) is hereby amended consistent with this

12

Paragraph.

13

3.

Prior to using any document or ESI from the Process ESI as part of a filing,

14

at a deposition, or at a trial or hearing in this matter, Plaintiffs shall make a good faith

15

effort to identify whether the document or ESI contains any information that is subject to

16

redaction under Case Management Order No 7 and corresponding Exhibit A (Doc. 401)

17

and to redact any such information in accordance with that Order and redaction protocol.

18

4.

Defendants shall independently have the right to identify any documents or

19

ESI from the Process ESI, including documents identified by Plaintiffs pursuant to

20

Paragraph 3, as subject to the requirements of Case Management Order No. 7 (Doc. 401)

21

and to require the redaction of the information set forth in that Order; in that event,

22

Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with a redacted version of the subject documents or

23

ESI with the same production Bates number(s) and Plaintiffs shall destroy any unredacted

24

copies or versions of the document that they possess.

25

5.

Defendants shall have the right to identify any document, file, or other form

26

of ESI produced pursuant to the Process as both being irrelevant to the matters in dispute

27

in this MDL and containing trade secret or other confidential information and to “claw

28

back” such ESI or documents from the production. After Plaintiffs use a document or ESI
2

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 6

1

from the Process ESI as part of a filing, at a deposition, or at a trial or hearing in this

2

matter, Defendants shall have 30 days to seek claw back of the particular document

3

pursuant to this Paragraph; this latter requirement does not apply to Process ESI that has

4

not been used by Plaintiffs as part of a filing, at a deposition, or at a trial or hearing in this

5

matter, which may be clawed back at any time.

6

6.

Plaintiffs shall have the right to challenge any designation or claw back by

7

Defendants under Paragraphs 4 or 5 by submission of the ESI or document to the Court

8

under seal, and any filings that refer to the protected substance of the ESI or document

9

must, likewise, be made under seal.

10
11

7.

Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) protection for privileged information

produced pursuant to the Process:

12

a. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), production or disclosure

13

pursuant to the Process of the substance or content of documents, materials,

14

or other information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-

15

product protection, or any other privilege or protection shall not amount to

16

waiver of the privilege and/or protection in this MDL, or in any other

17

federal or state proceeding.

18

b. If Plaintiffs identify a document, material, or other information in the

19

documents and ESI produced pursuant to the Process that reasonably

20

appears to be protected by any privilege or other protection, they shall

21

promptly notify Defendants in writing or email.

22

determine that the document, material, or other information is privileged or

23

otherwise protected, it shall make such an assertion in writing within 30

24

days of receipt of notification. Once the privilege or protection is asserted,

25

the parties shall follow the process discussed in Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). Failure to assert the privilege or protection within

27

30 days of receipt of notification shall amount to waiver of any privilege or

28
3

If the Defendants

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 6

1

protection only of the document, material, or other information identified in

2

the notification, subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a).

3

c. For any document, material, or other information produced or disclosed

4

during discovery, and not identified pursuant to section (b) of this

5

Paragraph, Defendants shall assert any claim of privilege or protection in

6

writing (including by email) within 30 days after Plaintiffs use the document

7

or ESI as part of a filing, at a deposition, or at a trial or hearing in this

8

matter. Once the privilege or protection is asserted, the parties shall follow

9

the process discussed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

10

Failure to assert the privilege or protection shall amount to waiver of the

11

privilege or protection only of the document, material, or other information

12

used, subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(a).

13

d. Unless waived under sections (b) or (c), at any time, a party that produces

14

any document, material, or other information that it believes to be protected

15

by the attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or any other

16

privilege or protection may assert the privilege or protection in writing.

17

Once the privilege or protection is asserted in writing, the parties shall

18

follow the process discussed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

19

26(b)(5)(B).

20

8.

To the extent that the documents or ESI produced pursuant to the Process

21

contain any adverse event reporter names or information of a patient who is not a party to

22

this litigation and which would otherwise be redacted in accordance with Case

23

Management Order No. 7, Plaintiffs and their counsel and agents shall not contact the

24

patient or reporter of an adverse event unless and until the parties go through the

25

processes outlined in Paragraphs 5 and 7 of this Case Management Order with respect to

26
27
28
4

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 6

1

redaction of information and this Court determines the information is not subject to

2

redaction.

3

Dated this 15th day of November, 2016.

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
5

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4015 Filed 11/16/16 Page 6 of 6

1

EXHIBIT A

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

4
5

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY

6
7
8

I, ______________________ (Name), as a principal in __________________

9

(“Law Firm”), have been given and have read a copy of the Amended Case Management

10

Order No. 17 and the Stipulated Protective Order (Doc 268) (the “Orders”) in the case of

11

MDL No. 2641, pending in the United States District Court District of Arizona, as have

12

all members of the Law Firm working on this litigation. We understand and will strictly

13

adhere to the contents of said Orders. We understand that produced material disclosed to

14

us is subject to the Orders of this Court and that we are prohibited from copying,

15

disclosing, or otherwise using such material except as provided by said court Orders. We

16

understand that any member of the Law Firm’s unauthorized disclosure of any

17

information protected by the Orders or contact of a patient or reporter of an adverse event

18

in violation of the Orders may constitute contempt of court, and we agree to be personally

19

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcing our obligations under

20

this Agreement, the Orders, and any contempt proceeding that may be instituted for the

21

Law Firm’s violation of the terms of this Acknowledgment and the Orders. I also

22

understand that my signature on this “Agreement to Maintain Confidentiality,” indicating

23

my agreement, the agreement of the members of the Law Firm working on this litigation

24

and the Law Firm’s agreement to be bound by the terms of the Orders, is required before

25

me and the members of the Law Firm may be allowed to receive and review any produced

26

document and materials that are protected under the Orders.

27

Date: _______________

28

Print Signature:_________________________
Signature:_____________________________
6

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4311 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 19

10
11
12

The Court held a seventh Case Management Conference on December 9, 2016.

13

The conference addressed ongoing matters identified in the parties’ joint report

14

(Doc. 4176).

15

A.

ESI.

16

Plaintiffs have identified some Defendant custodians from whom they have not

17

received ESI. Defendants have agreed to conduct additional searches with respect to

18

some of these custodians, and are investigating the lack of responsive information from

19

others.

20

December 22, 2016.

21

issues, and the Court directed the parties to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) as

22

providing the rules the Court will apply to any ESI-spoliation argument.

23

B.

Defendants shall produce any additional ESI from these custodians by
Plaintiffs mentioned that they may consider raising spoliation

Bellwether Selection.

24

Defendants expressed concern that two cases in PFS/DFS Group 1 (see CMO 11)

25

have recently been dismissed or shortly will be dismissed by Plaintiffs. Defendants

26

stated that these two cases were to be among the ten cases Defendants intended to

27

identify under paragraph IV.A.1 of CMO 11. After conferring with the parties, the Court

28

struck two cases from Plaintiffs’ list of ten (not including the four cases Plaintiffs

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4311 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 3

1

intended to designate for automatic inclusion in Discovery Group 1), and directed the

2

parties to exchange their lists of ten without respect to the two stricken cases and the two

3

cases to be dismissed. In effect, the Court reduced the pool from which the parties could

4

choose their ten preferred cases from 48 to 44, and did so in a way that results in each

5

side losing two possible candidates.

6

By December 16, 2016, the parties shall provide the Court with the 12 cases in

7

Discovery Group 1 if they have been able to reach agreement, and, if not, with the eight

8

cases to be included in Discovery Group 1 (or ten, if the parties have reached agreement

9

on two additional cases), along with memoranda explaining why they believe the Court

10

should pick particular cases to complete Discovery Group 1. The memoranda shall not

11

exceed three pages case. Responses shall be filed on or before December 22, 2016.

12

On or before December 16, 2016, the parties shall also provide the Court with a

13

proposed scheduling order to govern Discovery Group 1 between now and March 1,

14

2017, when Bellwether Group 1 will be selected. See CMO 11, ¶ V.A.

15

C.

Mature Cases.

16

After conferring with the parties, the Court concluded that it is premature to

17

remand mature cases to their home districts. Those cases will involve expert opinions

18

regarding the FDA warning letters and the Kay Fuller allegations, and the Court

19

concludes that disclosure of those opinions, as well as expert discovery and any Daubert

20

motions, should be handled in this MDL. This conclusion does not preclude the parties

21

from discussing specific cases which may be subject to remand before the expert work is

22

completed.

23

D.

Depositions of Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

24

Plaintiffs shall file a response to the arguments set forth by Defendants in

25

Doc. 4176 on or before December 16, 2016. Defendants shall file a reply on or before

26

December 22, 2016.

27
28

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4311 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 3

1

E.

30(b)(6) Deposition Notice.

2

After conferring with the parties, the Court concluded that Topic 15 in the Rule

3

30(b)(6) deposition discussed in Doc. 4176 should read as follows: “Did Defendants ever

4

conduct any studies, formulate any company positions, or adopt any policies addressing

5

whether there was any correlation between indwell times and safety risks?” If the answer

6

to any portion of this question is yes, the Rule 30(b)(6) witness should be prepared to

7

testify about the studies, positions, or policies.

8

F.

Next Case Management Conference.

9

The next Case Management Conference will be held on February 17, 2017 at

10

10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on or before

11

February 13, 2017.

12

Dated this 13th day of December, 2016.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4335 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-2641-DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

10

NO. 20

11

(Discovery Deadlines for Discovery
Group 1 and Bellwether Group 1)

12
13

Pursuant to Case Management Orders No. 11 (Doc. 1662), 18 (Doc. 3685), and 19

14

(Doc. 4311), the Court enters this Case Management Order No. 20 regarding scheduling

15

for Discovery Group 1 and Bellwether Group 1.

16

Action
Deadline for Plaintiffs to provide dates for
depositions of all Plaintiffs in Discovery
Group 1 and spouse or significant family
member
Case-specific fact discovery commences
in individual Discovery Group 1 cases
Deadline to complete depositions of all
Plaintiffs (including those Plaintiffs with
loss of consortium claims)
End of preliminary case-specific fact
discovery for Discovery Group 1 cases
Parties exchange lists of six (6) proposed

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Date/Deadline
Dec. 30, 20161

January 5, 2017
Feb. 16, 20172

April 10, 2017
April 17, 2017

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall make a good faith effort to obtain and provide dates on a rolling
basis in advance of Dec. 30, 2016 for all Discovery Group 1 cases identified by the Parties
on December 16. For cases chosen by the Court after that date, Plaintiffs will use their
best efforts to obtain and provide dates within two weeks after case selection.
2

The parties may extend this deadline by up to two weeks for cases selected after
December 16, 2016.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4335 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

selections from Discovery Group 1 for
Bellwether Group 1, and order of trials
(per CMO 18, Sec. B).
If the parties are unable to agree on six (6)
cases to comprise Bellwether Group 1, the
parties shall submit to the Court proposed
lists and memorandum in support of their
submissions and, if applicable, in
opposition to the opposing party’s
selections (per CMO 18, Sec. B).
Responses to opposing party’s
memorandum regarding selection of cases
for inclusion in Bellwether Group 1 (per
CMO 18, Sec. B).
Commence additional case-specific fact
discovery for Bellwether Group 1
Plaintiffs’ case-specific expert disclosures
for Bellwether Group 1

13
14

Defendants’ expert disclosures for
Bellwether Group 1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case-specific rebuttal expert disclosures
for Bellwether Group 1
Deadline for completion of additional
case-specific fact discovery for
Bellwether Group 1
Deadline for case-specific expert
depositions (intended to coincide with the
end of common expert discovery) for
Bellwether Group 1

April 24, 2017

April 28, 2017

Upon entry of the Court's selection of the
final group of six (6) cases to form
Bellwether Group 1.
May 15, 2017 (or two weeks after Court’s
selection of Bellwether Group 1,
whichever is later)
June 12, 2017 (or six weeks after Court’s
selection of Bellwether Group 1,
whichever is later)
June 26, 2017 (or eight weeks after
Court’s selection of Bellwether Group 1,
whichever is later)
June 30, 2017

July 14, 2017

22

The parties shall place a joint call to the Court on April 28, 2017 to remind it that

23

the selection of Bellwether Group 1 cases should occur promptly in order to keep this

24

schedule on track.

25

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2016.

26
27
28
2

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if
the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 12/24/2016 at 8:34 AM MST and filed on 12/24/2016
Case Name:
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Filer:
Document Number: 4339(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing on proposed depositions of Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court agrees that
depositions of opposing counsel "should be employed only in limited circumstances," Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805
F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986), and is not persuaded they should be permitted here. Defendants have obtained interrogatory
responses confirming that Plaintiffs' counsel reached out to the FDA on several occasions, held a conference call with FDA
personnel, sent certain specific documents to the FDA, and sent emails to the FDA (copies of which Defendants have obtained).
Defendants have also obtained some documents from the FDA related to these communications. This discovery will enable
Defendants -- if it is relevant and admissible, decisions the Court has not yet made -- to argue that Plaintiffs' counsel reached out
to the FDA, provided specific documents to the FDA, sent specific emails to the FDA, and did so before warning letters were
issued. To the extent Defendants wish to argue that the FDA letters were prompted by Plaintiffs' counsel, they have the ability to
do so. The Court is not persuaded that the additional and unusual step of deposing opposing counsel is "crucial to the
preparation of the case." Id. Because Defendants' previous interrogatories asked only that Plaintiffs' counsel "identify"
communications, the Court will permit Defendants to serve 7 additional interrogatories on each of Attorneys Dalimonte and
Brenes concerning what was said in the communications. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12-24-16. This is a TEXT
ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC)
2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James R Condo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert B Carey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert W Boatman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Stephen O'Connor
Turner Williamson Branch
Joseph Paul Michael Angelo
Clyde Talbot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

David A Domina

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sandy A Liebhard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Paul Lincoln Stoller

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Willard J Moody, Jr
Fred Thompson

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Shannon L Clark

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael William Heaviside
Leonard W Aragon

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Elizabeth C Helm

[e-mail]

Christopher A Seeger
James A Morris, Jr

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Daly

[e-mail]

Mark R Niemeyer
Joe Kendall

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael T Gallagher
Eric M Terry

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

C Lincoln Combs

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Szerlag

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles Wade Miller
John H Gomez

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Annesley H DeGaris
David R Ongaro
Lyn Peeples Pruitt
Anthony J Nemo
Andrew L Davick

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Elaine T Byszewski

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas P Cartmell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricia Lynn Campbell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Amanda Christine Sheridan
Michael Kevin Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert D Rowland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Yvonne M Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]

Wendy R Fleishman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

John C Duane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald A Migliori

[e-mail]

Kara Trouslot Stubbs
Samuel J Horovitz

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles R Houssiere, III
Ellen A Presby

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Max Freeman (Terminated) [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Richard W Schulte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Les Weisbrod (Terminated)
Michael K Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Carrie R Capouellez
Daniel N Gallucci

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Matthew Ramon Lopez [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Alexandra V Boone (Terminated)
Eric Davis Holland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph A Osborne, Jr
Rolf T Fiebiger

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory N McEwen
John J Driscoll

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randi Alyson Kassan

[e-mail]

Genevieve M Zimmerman
Jason P Johnston

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Jacob Zonies
Don K Ledgard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brendan J Flaherty
Kenneth W Pearson

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Ahmed Samir Diab

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

T Matthew Leckman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald P McKenna, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Theodore Floyd Stokes

[e-mail]

M Blair Clinton

[e-mail]

Stuart Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Marlene J Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Margaret Moses Branch
Adam Tal Funk

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael B Leh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

D Todd Mathews

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Robert Boatman
Michael P McGartland
David J Hodge

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela M Higgins

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Kevin Gray

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph R Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

James Albert Montee
James P Cannon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brandee J Kowalzyk
Matthew B Lerner

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard B North, Jr
Ben C Martin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas William Arbon

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew E Brown

[e-mail]

Taylor Tapley Daly

[e-mail]

Julia Reed-Zaic

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Elizabeth Smith
Ramon Rossi Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Troy Alexander Brenes (Terminated)

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin George Lohman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Nathan Craig Van Der Veer
Richard Arthur Freese

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert M Hammers, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James Frederick Rogers

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Ryan McCarley
Michael S Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

John A Dalimonte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teresa C Toriseva

[e-mail]

Clair A Montroy, III
David W Zoll

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Dorman Matthews
David B Krangle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Jason T Schneider

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Calle M Mendenhall
Spencer J Pahlke
Michael A Kelly

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven James Boranian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kimberly Waters Grant

[e-mail]

Wayne Grant

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brandon L Corl

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Andres F Alonso

[e-mail]

Christopher Thomas Kirchmer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randal A Kauffman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Hadley L Matarazzo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth Riley

[e-mail]

John Pinckney Harloe, III
[e-mail]
Matthew D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Douglas Senger Saeltzer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael Brandon Smith

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Grant Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John Lacoste Langdoc

[e-mail], [e-mail]

S Ann Saucer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura J Baughman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Russell W Budd

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Felecia L Stern

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jon C Conlin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff R Gaddy

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

Sindhu Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roland Karim Tellis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard L Nations

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Rand P Nolen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Moze Cowper

[e-mail]

Daniel Seltz

[e-mail]

Monte Bond (Terminated)
Brian A Goldstein

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David P Matthews
H Forest Horne

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaclyn L Anderson

[e-mail]

Graham B LippSmith

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Nolte Williams
Glen Elliot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kirsten McNelly Bibbes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Raymond Ongaro

[e-mail]

William B Curtis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Seth Crompton
Robin P Lourie

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brian Keith Jackson

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ethan L Shaw

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J Riley

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Justin W Fishback

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff Seldomridge (Terminated)
Jesse Burl Chrisp

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Erin Mielke

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David M Langevin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer A Lenze
Jaime E Moss

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laurie E Kamerrer
Nathan Buttars

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan D Peck

[e-mail]

David C DeGreeff
Todd E Hilton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sherri L Plotkin

[e-mail]

Matthew David Schultz
Matthew J. McCauley
Philip Sholtz

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Lucas James Ude
J Mark Kell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Lynne Voght
Rick Barreca

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Alexander Onstott

[e-mail]

Matthew Paul Skrabanek

[e-mail]

Nicholas Farnolo
Jonathan Hogins

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jacob Edward Levy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Lee White

[e-mail]

Eric Roslansky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian E Tadtman

[e-mail]

David M Peterson

[e-mail]

Nicholas Clevenger
Shezad Malik

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kristen K Barton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark C Aubuchon

[e-mail]

William M Berlowitz

[e-mail]

William Michael Loughran
Christian T Williams
Amy J Anderson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Everette Scott Verhine

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert Bruce Warner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Lynnette Simon Marshall
Kelsey Louise Stokes

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Christopher Elliott

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian Broussard Winegar
Jim Mac Perdue, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald Hamilton Kidd
M Michael Waters
Kay L Van Wey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Joshua D Christian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip J Pendergrass, Jr
Noah H Kushlefsky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Scott Mokwa
Amorina P Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Scott E Brady

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip Bohrer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick T Fennell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard S Lewis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven Rotman

[e-mail]

Andrea Layne Stackhouse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Julie S Ferraro

[e-mail]

Dean A Goetz

[e-mail]

Jason S Morgan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Guarnieri

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael S. Werner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall John Trost

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Troy Trost

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Benjamin A Bertram
Karolina S Kulesza
Elizabeth Dudley

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Nicholas P Scarpelli, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond T Trebisacci

[e-mail]

Michael Frederick Decker
Nathaniel Scearcy

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
Braden Beard

[e-mail]

Ashleigh E Raso

[e-mail]

Joshua Sean Kincannon
Mekel S Alvarez
Betsy J Barnes

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Karen Delcambre McCarthy
Peter E Goss

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Timothy David Hedrick
Edward McCarthy, III
Joe A King, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin Meade Fitzgerald
Angela Joy Mason
Joseph D. Lane

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

T Aaron Stringer

[e-mail]

Samuel Mason Wendt
David L Grebel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Michael Stephen Kruse

[e-mail]

Peyton P Murphy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Todd C Comeaux

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Henry Shere Queener, III
Amir M Kahana

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Bill Bradley, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James B Tuttle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

K Camp Bailey

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew S Groher

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Keith L Altman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph N Williams

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

William F. Blankenship, III
John Reily Crone

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Carlyle Glenfield Varlack, Jr
Clint Reed

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew B Moreland
Jennifer L Crose

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin P Klibert

[e-mail]

Eugene Arthur Arbaugh, Jr

[e-mail]

Andrew Edward McGraw

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles T Paglialunga

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Melanie K Schmickle

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel P Barton
Robert R Luke

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael J Walsh

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roger W Orlando

[e-mail]

Brian D Weinstein

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Baird Brown

[e-mail]

John Benjamin Black

[e-mail]

John Thomas Kirtley, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Amy Collignon Gunn

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert T Naumes, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John G Simon

[e-mail]

Andrew W Callahan
Brian Scott Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Stag

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Merritt E Cunningham

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan M Sedgh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard A Snyder

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel S Gruber

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anthony A Orlandi

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Joey P Leniski, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brielle Marie Hunt

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Phelan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Bonnie Adele Kendrick
Thomas A Tarro, III

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Henry Gilbert Garrard, III
[e-mail]
Clifford Alan Rieders

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Basil A Adham

[e-mail]

Mark R Nash

[e-mail]

Josh B Wages

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

James B Matthews, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew J Hill, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick H Garrard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Larry D Helvey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jacob Alex Flint

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer A Moore

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Dustin B Herman
Stuart E Scott

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Peter J Brodhead

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:
Aaron A Clark
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Alex Cameron Walker
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA
500 4th St. NW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Amanda Montee
Montee Law Firm
P.O. Box 127
St. Joseph, MO 64502
Andrew J Trevelise
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Anthony James Urban
Urban Law
P.O. Box 890
Pottsville, PA 17901
Brian John Perkins
Meyers & Flowers LLC
3 N 2nd St., Ste. 300
St Charles, IL 60174
Bruce S Kingsdorf
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Catherine A Faught Pollard
Quarles & Brady LLP - Milwaukee, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2040
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
Chris Johnson
Christopher Brian Watt
Reed Smith LLP - Houston, TX
811 Main St., Ste. 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Christopher J Quinn

Driscoll Firm PC
211 N Broadway, Ste. 4050
St Louis, MO 63102
Craig D Henderson
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Craig E Hilborn
Hilborn & Hilborn
999 Haynes, Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Daniel K Winters
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
David J Cooner
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
David J Walz
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
David W Ledyard
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard - Beamont, TX
595 Orleans, Ste. 1400
Beaumont, TX 77701
Dawn M Barrios
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Debra A Djupman
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Dennis P Mulvihill
Wright & Schulte - Cleveland, OH
23240 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Diana Rabeh
Reed Smith LLP - Wilmington, DE
1201 Market St., Ste. 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Diane Washington
E Terry Sibbernsen

Sibbernsen, Strigenz Law Firm - Omaha
1111 N 102nd Ct., Ste. 330
Omaha, NE 68114
Edna M Gray
Edward W Gerecke
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Elaine Sargeant
Elizabeth G Grimes
Law Offices of Michael A DeMayo LLP
P.O. Box 34426
Charlotte, NC 28234
Elizabeth Hosea Lemoine
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75204
Elizabeth S Fenton
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
300 Conshohocken State Rd., Ste. 570
W Conshohocken, PA 19428
Ellen Relkin
Weitz & Luxenberg PC - New York, NY
700 Broadway, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Eric J Buhr
Reed Smith LLP - Los Angeles, CA
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frederick R Hovde
Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC
Meridian Twr.
201 W 103rd St., Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Gary Robert Tulp
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
Gary F Hamilton
Gerard C Kramer
Schmidt Ronca & Kramer PC
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Gregory D Bentley
Zonies Law LLC
1900 Wazee St., Ste.203
Denver, CO 80202
Hilary E Youngblood
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Jack Edward Urquhart
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Jacob W Plattenberger
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
James Holt
James P Catalano
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Nashville, TN
1 Nashville Pl.
150 4th Ave. N, Ste. 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Jamie Jean McKey
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Jane T Davis
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Charleston, SC
151 Meeting St., Ste. 600
Charleston, SC 29401
Janet Lynn White
Jennifer Ann Guidea
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
Jennifer J Hageman
Ulmer & Berne LLP - Cincinnati, OH
600 Vine St., Ste. 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Joan Anderson
Jody Lynn Rudman
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204

John A Camp
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt - Miami, FL
100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
John G Mitchell
Secrest Wardle
P.O. Box 5025
Troy, MI 48007-5025
John H Allen , III
Jackson Allen & Williams LLP
3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
John J Glenn
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
John Neumann Hickey
Law Offices of John N Hickey
20 W Front St.
Media, PA 19063
Jordan L Chaikin
Parker Waichman LLP - Bonita Springs, FL
27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Joshua A Mankoff
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Joshua D Miller
Toriseva Law
1446 National Rd.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Joshua R Johnson
Babbitt & Johnson PA
1641 Worthington Rd., Ste. 100
W Palm Beach, FL 33402
Joshua S Whitley
Smyth Whitley
BB&T Plz.
234 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 234
Charleston, SC 29492
Justin Ross Kaufman
Heard Robins Cloud LLP - Santa Fe, NM
505 Cerrillos Rd., Ste. A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Katherine Diven
Kathryn Snapka

Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Kelly Elswick-Hall
Masters Law Firm
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Kevin M Hara
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Kevin R Martin
Martin Law Offices SC
7280 S 13th St., Ste. 102
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Lawrence R Murphy , Jr
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Louisa O Kirakosian
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Mariann M Robison
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Mark A Sentenac
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mathew R Doebler
Pribanic & Pribanic LLC
513 Court Pl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Matthew John Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Melanie M Atha
Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & ONeal LLP
P.O. Box 830612
Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
Michael Ockerman
Hanna Campbell & Powell
3737 Embassy Pkwy., Ste. 100
Akron, OH 44333
Michael F Marlow

Johnson Miner Marlow Woodward & Huff PLLC
P.O. Box 667
Yankton, SD 57078-0667
Michael Joseph Ryan
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Michael L Armitage
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Michael Alan Gross
Nancy June Falls
Neilli M Walsh
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Neville H Boschert
Jones WalkerWaechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427
Nevin Christopher Brownfield
Ongaro PC
50 California St., Ste. 3325
San Francisco, CA 94108
Patrick T Clendenen
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Peter C Wetherall
Wetherall Group Limited
9345 W Sunset Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Peter Thomas Anderson
Ashcraft & Gerel LLP - Alexandria, VA
4900 Seminar Rd., Ste. 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Raymond G Mullady , Jr
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Washington, DC
101 Constitution Ave. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20001
Raymond Joseph Kramer , III
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604

Rhett A McSweeney
McSweeney Langevin LLC
2116 2nd Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Richard A Zappa
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard Allen Cohn
Aitken Aitken Cohn
P.O. Box 2555
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard E Vollertsen
Atkinson Conway & Gagnon Incorporated
420 L St., Ste. 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Richard J Schicker
Schicker Law Firm
2809 S 160th St., Ste. 207
Omaha, NE 68130
Ricky L Boren
Hill Boren
P.O. Box 3539
Jackson, TN 38303-0539
Robert Diemer
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Robert R Hatten
Patten Wornom Hatten Diamonstein LC
12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Robert Williams Goldwater , III
Goldwater Law Firm PC
15849 N 71st St., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Roberts Clay Milling , II
Henry Spiegel Milling LLP
950 E Paces Ferry Rd., Ste. 2450
Atlanta, GA 30326
Ruth A Horvatich
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Sanjay Ghosh
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLC - Atlanta, GA

Atlantic Station
201 17th St. NW, Ste. 1700
Atlanta, GA 30363
Sarah Mangum(Terminated)
Shelia Sloan
Steven James Skikos
Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP
1 Sansome St., Ste. 2830
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tayjes Matthew Shah
Miller Law Firm LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Thomas Flournay
Thomas Melone
Allco Renewable Energy Limited
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Thomas A Kenefick , III
Law Office of Thomas A Kenefick III
73 Chestnut St.
Springfield, MA 01103
Thomas K Herren
Herren & Adams
148 N Broadway
Lexington, KY 40507
Tiffany L Roach Martin
MNodrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA - Santa Fe, NM
P.O. Box 2168
Santa FE, NM 87103-2168
Timothy Pinegar
Timothy E Lengkeek
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Timothy John Freiberg
Freiberg Law Offices
4545 Springbrook Rd.
Rockford, IL 61114
Tor A Hoerman
TorHoerman Law LLC - Edwardsville, IL
101 W Vandalla St., Ste. 350

Edwardsville, IL 62025
Vickie J Traughber
Vivian M Quinn
Nixon Peabody LLP - Buffalo NY
Key Towers at Fountain Plaza
40 Fountain Plz., Ste. 500
Buffalo, NY 14202
W Bryan Smith
Morgan & Morgan PA - Memphis, TN
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
William H Carpenter
William H Carpenter Law Office Limited
P.O. Box 35070
Albuquerque, NM 87176-5070
William S Curtiss
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
180 Montgomery St
Ste 1725
San Francisco, CA 94104-4209
Wilnar Jeanne Julmiste
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Zachary Logan Wool
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is
unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the
filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if
the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/6/2017 at 3:33 PM MST and filed on 2/6/2017
Case Name:
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
Case Number:
2:15-md-02641-DGC
Filer:
Document Number: 4865(No document attached)
Docket Text:
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing on issues in dispute with respect to Discovery Group 1. Docs. 4503, 4505,
4608, 4639. (In the future, responses and replies shall not be filed when the parties have each stated their positions in the initial
filings, as here.) The Court concludes that limitations should not be placed on Plaintiffs' ex parte communications with treating
physicians. The Court has reviewed cases cited by both sides, and finds that the weight of recent case law disfavors such
limitations. See In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2592, 2016 WL 915288 (E.D. La. Mar. 9, 2016); In re
Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2545, 2016 WL 929343 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2016); In re Benicar
(Olmesartan) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2026, 2016 WL 1370998 (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2016). Cases imposing such limitations are older
than these recent cases and generally lack analysis in support of the limitations they impose. See, e.g., In re Chantix
(Varenicline) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2:09-CV-2039-IPJ, 2011 WL 9995561 (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2011); In re Ortho Evra Prod. Liab.
Litig., No. 1:06-40000, 2010 WL 320064 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2010); In re Nuvaring Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 4:08MD1964 RWS, 2009 WL
775442 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2009). The Court finds the more recent decisions persuasive. The Court will adopt the disclosure
requirements in the proposed case management order regarding ex parte communications. The Court also notes that it agrees
with the Ninth Circuit's position in Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011) ("a treating
physician is only exempt from Rule 26(a)(2)(B)'s written report requirement to the extent that his opinions were formed during
the course of treatment"). The parties have not briefed whether Goodman should apply in this MDL, but, if it does, the parties will
not be permitted to present expert opinions that were not formed in the course of treatment unless those opinions were
appropriately disclosed under Rule 26(a)(2). On another issue addressed in the briefing, the Court will not require that
Defendants question treating physicians first. For treating physicians who would be called by Plaintiffs during their case in
chief, "examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(1). The Court will
adopt Plaintiffs' proposed order language on depositions of treating physicians. Finally, the Court will permit the deposition of
one sales representative per case during Discovery Group 1. The Court concludes that such depositions will provide important
information for bellwether selection, but that more than one deposition is not needed before selection. The Court will not impose
the time or subject limits proposed by Defendants for the sales representative depositions. Signed by Judge David G Campbell
on 2-6-17. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (DGC)
2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice has been electronically mailed to:
James R Condo

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert B Carey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert W Boatman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Stephen O'Connor
Turner Williamson Branch
Joseph Paul Michael Angelo
Clyde Talbot Turner
David A Domina

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Paul Lincoln Stoller

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Willard J Moody, Jr
Fred Thompson

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Shannon L Clark

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael William Heaviside
Leonard W Aragon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Elizabeth C Helm

[e-mail]

Christopher A Seeger
James A Morris, Jr

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael T Gallagher

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Daly

[e-mail]

Mark R Niemeyer
Joe Kendall

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Sandy A Liebhard

Eric M Terry

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

C Lincoln Combs
David J Szerlag

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles Wade Miller
John H Gomez

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Annesley H DeGaris

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David R Ongaro

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anthony J Nemo

[e-mail]

Andrew L Davick
Elaine T Byszewski

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas P Cartmell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Patricia Lynn Campbell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Amanda Christine Sheridan
Michael Kevin Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert D Rowland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Yvonne M Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail], [e-mail]

Wendy R Fleishman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Leslie M Cronen
John C Duane

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald A Migliori

[e-mail]

Kara Trouslot Stubbs
Samuel J Horovitz

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles R Houssiere, III
Ellen A Presby

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Max Freeman (Terminated) [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Richard W Schulte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Les Weisbrod (Terminated)
Michael K Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Carrie R Capouellez

[e-mail]

Matthew Ramon Lopez [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Alexandra V Boone (Terminated)
Eric Davis Holland

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph A Osborne, Jr
Rolf T Fiebiger

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory N McEwen
John J Driscoll

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randi Alyson Kassan

[e-mail]

Genevieve M Zimmerman
Jason P Johnston

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph Jacob Zonies
Don K Ledgard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brendan J Flaherty

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth W Pearson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Ahmed Samir Diab

[e-mail], [e-mail]

T Matthew Leckman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald P McKenna, Jr
M Blair Clinton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Stuart Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Marlene J Goldenberg

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Margaret Moses Branch

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Adam Tal Funk [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
Michael B Leh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

D Todd Mathews

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Robert Boatman
Michael P McGartland
David J Hodge

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Angela M Higgins

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Tara T Tabatabaie

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Mark Kevin Gray

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph R Johnson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

James Albert Montee
James P Cannon

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brandee J Kowalzyk
Matthew B Lerner
Richard B North, Jr
Ben C Martin

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas William Arbon
Matthew E Brown

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Taylor Tapley Daly
Julia Reed-Zaic

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Elizabeth Smith
Ramon Rossi Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Troy Alexander Brenes (Terminated)
Kevin George Lohman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Nathan Craig Van Der Veer
Richard Arthur Freese

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Sheila M Bossier (Terminated)
Robert M Hammers, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James Frederick Rogers

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Ryan McCarley
Michael S Katz

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

John A Dalimonte

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Teresa C Toriseva

[e-mail]

Sanjay Ghosh

[e-mail]

Clair A Montroy, III
David W Zoll

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Dorman Matthews
David B Krangle

[e-mail]

Jason T Schneider

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Calle M Mendenhall
Spencer J Pahlke
Michael A Kelly
Kevin M Hara

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

Steven James Boranian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel C Burke (Terminated)
Kimberly Waters Grant
Wayne Grant
Brandon L Corl

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Andres F Alonso

[e-mail]

Christopher Thomas Kirchmer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randal A Kauffman

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Hadley L Matarazzo

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kenneth Riley

[e-mail]

John Pinckney Harloe, III
[e-mail]
Matthew D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Douglas Senger Saeltzer

[e-mail]

Michael Brandon Smith

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Grant Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John Lacoste Langdoc

[e-mail], [e-mail]

S Ann Saucer

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura J Baughman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Russell W Budd

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Felecia L Stern

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven D Davis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jon C Conlin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff R Gaddy

[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

Sindhu Daniel

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roland Karim Tellis

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard L Nations

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Rand P Nolen

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Moze Cowper

[e-mail]

Daniel Seltz

[e-mail]

Monte Bond (Terminated)
Brian A Goldstein

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David P Matthews
H Forest Horne

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jaclyn L Anderson
Graham B LippSmith

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer Nolte Williams
John H Allen, III

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Glen Elliot Turner

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kirsten McNelly Bibbes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Raymond Ongaro

[e-mail]

William B Curtis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Seth Crompton
Robin P Lourie

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Brian Keith Jackson
Ethan L Shaw

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew J Riley

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Justin W Fishback

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jeff Seldomridge (Terminated)
Jesse Burl Chrisp

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Melissa Erin Mielke

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David M Langevin

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven James Skikos

[e-mail]

Matthew John Skikos

[e-mail]

Jennifer A Lenze
Jaime E Moss

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laurie E Kamerrer
Nathan Buttars

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan D Peck

[e-mail]

David C DeGreeff
Todd E Hilton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sherri L Plotkin

[e-mail]

Matthew David Schultz
Matthew J. McCauley
Philip Sholtz

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Lucas James Ude

[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Mark Kell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Laura Lynne Voght
Rick Barreca

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

David Alexander Onstott

[e-mail]

Matthew Paul Skrabanek

[e-mail]

Nicholas Farnolo

[e-mail]

Jonathan Hogins

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jacob Edward Levy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Lee White

[e-mail]

Eric Roslansky

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian E Tadtman

[e-mail]

David M Peterson

[e-mail]

Nicholas Clevenger
Shezad Malik

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kristen K Barton

[e-mail]

Mark C Aubuchon

[e-mail]

William M Berlowitz

[e-mail]

William Michael Loughran
Christian T Williams
Amy J Anderson

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Everette Scott Verhine

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert Bruce Warner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Lynnette Simon Marshall
Kelsey Louise Stokes

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

J Christopher Elliott

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jim Mac Perdue, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Donald Hamilton Kidd
M Michael Waters
Kay L Van Wey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

Joshua D Christian

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip J Pendergrass, Jr
Noah H Kushlefsky

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Matthew Scott Mokwa
Amorina P Lopez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Scott E Brady

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Philip Bohrer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Thomas Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick T Fennell

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Richard S Lewis

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Steven Rotman

[e-mail]

Andrea Layne Stackhouse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Julie S Ferraro

[e-mail]

Dean A Goetz

[e-mail]

Jason S Morgan

[e-mail], [e-mail]

David J Guarnieri

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael S. Werner

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall John Trost

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Randall Troy Trost

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Benjamin A Bertram
Karolina S Kulesza
Elizabeth Dudley

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Nicholas P Scarpelli, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Raymond T Trebisacci

[e-mail]

Michael Frederick Decker
Nathaniel Scearcy
Edward Blizzard

[e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Rosemarie Riddell Bogdan
Braden Beard
Ashleigh E Raso

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Joshua Sean Kincannon
Mekel S Alvarez

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Betsy J Barnes

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Karen Delcambre McCarthy
Peter E Goss

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Timothy David Hedrick

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Edward McCarthy, III
Joe A King, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin Meade Fitzgerald
Angela Joy Mason
Joseph D. Lane

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

T Aaron Stringer

[e-mail]

Samuel Mason Wendt
David L Grebel

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Michael Stephen Kruse

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Peyton P Murphy

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Todd C Comeaux

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Henry Shere Queener, III
Amir M Kahana

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Bill Bradley, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

James B Tuttle

[e-mail], [e-mail]

K Camp Bailey

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew S Groher
Keith L Altman

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph N Williams

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

William F. Blankenship, III
John Reily Crone

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Carlyle Glenfield Varlack, Jr
Clint Reed

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

Matthew B Moreland

[e-mail]

Jennifer L Crose

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin P Klibert

[e-mail]

Eugene Arthur Arbaugh, Jr

[e-mail]

Andrew Edward McGraw

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Charles T Paglialunga

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Melanie K Schmickle

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel P Barton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert R Luke

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael J Walsh

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Roger W Orlando

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Brian D Weinstein

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Baird Brown

[e-mail]

John Benjamin Black

[e-mail]

John Thomas Kirtley, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Amy Collignon Gunn

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Robert T Naumes, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

John G Simon

[e-mail]

Andrew W Callahan
Brian Scott Katz
Michael G Stag

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Merritt E Cunningham

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan M Sedgh

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Howard A Snyder

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Daniel S Gruber

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Anthony A Orlandi

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joey P Leniski, Jr

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Brielle Marie Hunt

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael G Phelan

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Bonnie Adele Kendrick
Thomas A Tarro, III

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Henry Gilbert Garrard, III
Clifford Alan Rieders

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Basil A Adham

[e-mail]

Mark R Nash

[e-mail]

Josh B Wages

[e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail]

James B Matthews, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew J Hill, III

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Patrick H Garrard

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Larry D Helvey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jacob Alex Flint

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Jennifer A Moore

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Dustin B Herman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Stuart E Scott

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Andrew F Kirkendall
Alexander G Dwyer

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Emily Ward Roark

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Mark Edward Berns
Gregory J Pals

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

Courtland Carter Chillingworth
Barry JD Levy

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Debra J Humphrey
Philip M Busman

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Dennis Andrew Hom

[e-mail]

Andrew Joseph Rosenzweig
Douglass Alan Kreis
Michael A Bottar

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Louis Francis Gilligan
Roxell Ann Richards

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

Oluwaseun Adetoun Adeyemi
Mason Lee Boling

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Sean T Keith

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Joseph J Cappelli

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin J Boissoneault
Michael D Bell

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Jonathan M Ashton

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Michael C Schafle

[e-mail]

Peter M Merrigan

[e-mail]

Jonathan Tucker Merrigan

[e-mail]

2:15-md-02641-DGC Notice will be sent by other means to those listed below if they are affected by this filing:
Aaron A Clark
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Alex Cameron Walker
Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA
500 4th St. NW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Amanda Montee
Montee Law Firm
P.O. Box 127
St. Joseph, MO 64502
Andrew J Trevelise
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Anthony James Urban
Urban Law
P.O. Box 890
Pottsville, PA 17901
Bobby Saadian
Wilshire Law Firm PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Brian Broussard Winegar
Perdue & Kidd
510 Bering Dr., Ste. 550
Houston, TX 77057
Brian John Perkins
Meyers & Flowers LLC
3 N 2nd St., Ste. 300
St Charles, IL 60174

Bruce S Kingsdorf
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
Catherine A Faught Pollard
Quarles & Brady LLP - Milwaukee, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2040
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4497
Chris Johnson
Christopher Brian Watt
Reed Smith LLP - Houston, TX
811 Main St., Ste. 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Christopher J Quinn
Driscoll Firm PC
211 N Broadway, Ste. 4050
St Louis, MO 63102
Craig D Henderson
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Craig E Hilborn
Hilborn & Hilborn
999 Haynes, Ste. 205
Birmingham, MI 48009
Daniel K Winters
Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
David J Cooner
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
David J Walz
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
David W Ledyard
Strong Pipkin Bissell & Ledyard - Beamont, TX
595 Orleans, Ste. 1400
Beaumont, TX 77701
Dawn M Barrios
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

Debra A Djupman
Reed Smith LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1717 Arch St., Ste. 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Dennis P Mulvihill
Wright & Schulte - Cleveland, OH
23240 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Diana Rabeh
Reed Smith LLP - Wilmington, DE
1201 Market St., Ste. 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
E Terry Sibbernsen
Sibbernsen, Strigenz Law Firm - Omaha
1111 N 102nd Ct., Ste. 330
Omaha, NE 68114
Edna M Gray
Edward W Gerecke
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA - Tampa, FL
P.O. Box 3239
Tampa, FL 33601-3239
Elaine Sargeant
Elizabeth G Grimes
Law Offices of Michael A DeMayo LLP
P.O. Box 34426
Charlotte, NC 28234
Elizabeth Hosea Lemoine
Wick Phillips Gould & Martin LLP
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste. 100
Dallas, TX 75204
Elizabeth S Fenton
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
300 Conshohocken State Rd., Ste. 570
W Conshohocken, PA 19428
Ellen Relkin
Weitz & Luxenberg PC - New York, NY
700 Broadway, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Eric J Buhr
Reed Smith LLP - Los Angeles, CA
355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frederick R Hovde
Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC
Meridian Twr.

201 W 103rd St., Ste. 500
Indianapolis, IN 46290
Gary Robert Tulp
McCarter & English LLP - Newark, NJ
4 Gateway Ctr.
100 Mulberry St.
Newark, NJ 07101
Gary F Hamilton
Gerard C Kramer
Schmidt Ronca & Kramer PC
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Gerard M Parks
Gregory D Bentley
Zonies Law LLC
1900 Wazee St., Ste.203
Denver, CO 80202
Hilary E Youngblood
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Jack Edward Urquhart
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Jacob W Plattenberger
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
James P Catalano
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Nashville, TN
1 Nashville Pl.
150 4th Ave. N, Ste. 1100
Nashville, TN 37219
Jamie Jean McKey
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Jane T Davis
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Charleston, SC
151 Meeting St., Ste. 600
Charleston, SC 29401
Janet Lynn White
Jennifer Ann Guidea

Reed Smith LLP - New York, NY
599 Lexington Ave., 30th Fl.
New York, NY 10022-7650
Jennifer J Hageman
Ulmer & Berne LLP - Cincinnati, OH
600 Vine St., Ste. 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Joan Anderson
Jody Lynn Rudman
Kendall Law Group LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75204
John A Camp
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt - Miami, FL
100 SE 2nd St., Ste. 4200
Miami, FL 33131
John G Mitchell
Secrest Wardle
P.O. Box 5025
Troy, MI 48007-5025
John J Glenn
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
John Neumann Hickey
Law Offices of John N Hickey
20 W Front St.
Media, PA 19063
Jordan L Chaikin
Parker Waichman LLP - Bonita Springs, FL
27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 103
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Joshua A Mankoff
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Joshua D Miller
Toriseva Law
1446 National Rd.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Joshua R Johnson
Babbitt & Johnson PA
1641 Worthington Rd., Ste. 100
W Palm Beach, FL 33402
Joshua S Whitley
Smyth Whitley
BB&T Plz.

234 Seven Farms Dr., Ste. 234
Charleston, SC 29492
Justin Ross Kaufman
Heard Robins Cloud LLP - Santa Fe, NM
505 Cerrillos Rd., Ste. A209
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Katherine Diven
Kathryn Snapka
Snapka Law Firm
P.O. Box 23017
Corpus Christi, TX 78403
Kelly Elswick-Hall
Masters Law Firm
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Kevin R Martin
Martin Law Offices SC
7280 S 13th St., Ste. 102
Oak Creek, WI 53154
Lawrence R Murphy , Jr
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Louisa O Kirakosian
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Louise Greene
Lynne Bonner
Mariann M Robison
Richards & Connor
525 S Main St., 12th Fl.
Tulsa, OK 74103
Mark A Sentenac
Reed Smith LLP - San Francisco, CA 2nd St.
101 2nd St., 18th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Mathew R Doebler
Pribanic & Pribanic LLC
513 Court Pl.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Melanie M Atha
Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & ONeal LLP
P.O. Box 830612

Birmingham, AL 35283-0612
Michael Ockerman
Hanna Campbell & Powell
3737 Embassy Pkwy., Ste. 100
Akron, OH 44333
Michael F Marlow
Johnson Miner Marlow Woodward & Huff PLLC
P.O. Box 667
Yankton, SD 57078-0667
Michael Joseph Ryan
Lopez McHugh LLP - Philadelphia, PA
1123 Admiral Peary Way, Quarters K
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Michael L Armitage
Waters Kraus & Paul
222 N Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1900
El Segundo, CA 90245
Michael Alan Gross
Nancy June Falls
Neilli M Walsh
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Neville H Boschert
Jones WalkerWaechter Poitevent Carrere & Denegre
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427
Nevin Christopher Brownfield
Ongaro PC
50 California St., Ste. 3325
San Francisco, CA 94108
Patrick T Clendenen
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Boston, MA
1 Post Office Sq.
Boston, MA 02109
Peter C Wetherall
Wetherall Group Limited
9345 W Sunset Rd., Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89148
Peter J Brodhead
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP
1001 Lakeside Ave. E, Ste. 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Peter Thomas Anderson

Ashcraft & Gerel LLP - Alexandria, VA
4900 Seminar Rd., Ste. 650
Alexandria, VA 22311
Raymond G Mullady , Jr
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Washington, DC
101 Constitution Ave. NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20001
Raymond Joseph Kramer , III
Torhoerman Law LLC
234 S Wabash Ave., 7th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60604
Rhett A McSweeney
McSweeney Langevin LLC
2116 2nd Ave. S
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Richard A Zappa
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard Allen Cohn
Aitken Aitken Cohn
P.O. Box 2555
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Richard E Vollertsen
Atkinson Conway & Gagnon Incorporated
420 L St., Ste. 500
Anchorage, AK 99501
Richard J Schicker
Schicker Law Firm
2809 S 160th St., Ste. 207
Omaha, NE 68130
Ricky L Boren
Hill Boren
P.O. Box 3539
Jackson, TN 38303-0539
Robert Diemer
Davidovitz & Bennett
101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Robert R Hatten
Patten Wornom Hatten Diamonstein LC
12350 Jefferson Ave., Ste. 300
Newport News, VA 23602
Robert Williams Goldwater , III
Goldwater Law Firm PC
15849 N 71st St., Ste. 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Roberts Clay Milling , II
Henry Spiegel Milling LLP
950 E Paces Ferry Rd., Ste. 2450
Atlanta, GA 30326
Ruth A Horvatich
McGrath North Law Firm
First National Tower
1601 Dodge St., Ste. 3700
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Sarah Mangum(Terminated)
Shelia Sloan
Tayjes Matthew Shah
Miller Law Firm LLC
108 Railroad Ave.
Orange, VA 22960
Thomas Melone
Allco Renewable Energy Limited
14 Wall St., 20th Fl.
New York, NY 10005
Thomas A Kenefick , III
Law Office of Thomas A Kenefick III
73 Chestnut St.
Springfield, MA 01103
Thomas K Herren
Herren & Adams
148 N Broadway
Lexington, KY 40507
Tiffany L Roach Martin
MNodrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA - Santa Fe, NM
P.O. Box 2168
Santa FE, NM 87103-2168
Timothy Pinegar
Timothy E Lengkeek
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP
Rodney Sq.
1000 N King St.
Wilmington, DE 19801
Timothy John Freiberg
Freiberg Law Offices
4545 Springbrook Rd.
Rockford, IL 61114
Tor A Hoerman
TorHoerman Law LLC - Edwardsville, IL
101 W Vandalla St., Ste. 350
Edwardsville, IL 62025

Vickie J Traughber
Vivian M Quinn
Nixon Peabody LLP - Buffalo NY
Key Towers at Fountain Plaza
40 Fountain Plz., Ste. 500
Buffalo, NY 14202
W Bryan Smith
Morgan & Morgan PA - Memphis, TN
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Memphis, TN 38103
William H Carpenter
William H Carpenter Law Office Limited
P.O. Box 35070
Albuquerque, NM 87176-5070
William S Curtiss
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
180 Montgomery St
Ste 1725
San Francisco, CA 94104-4209
Wilnar Jeanne Julmiste
Anderson Glenn LLC
2201 NW Corporate Blvd., Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Zachary Logan Wool
Barrios Kingsdorf & Casteix LLP
1 Shell Sq.
701 Poydras St., Ste. 3650
New Orleans, LA 70139-3650

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4866 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-2641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 21

9
10

(Discovery Protocols for Discovery
Group 1)

11
12
13

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 11 [Doc. 1662], Case Management Order

14

No. 18 [Doc. 3685], and Case Management Order No. 19 [Doc. 4311], the Court enters

15

this Case Management Order No. 21 regarding the discovery to be conducted for cases in

16

Discovery Group 1.

17

I.

DEPOSITION PROTOCOLS GENERALLY

18

A.

Case Management Order No. 14 shall apply to Discovery Group 1.

19

B.

The additional protocols of this Case Management Order shall also apply to
Discovery Group 1.

20
C.

21

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 11, Section V.A.3 and Case

22

Management Order No. 18, Section B, the Parties will provide discovery

23

protocols applicable to Bellwether Group 1 by no later than April 28, 2017.

24
25

II.

DEPOSITIONS PERMITTED
A.

Prior to April 10, 2017, the Parties may take the following depositions in

26

each case that is part of Discovery Group I:

27

1.

28

The principal Plaintiff and any loss-of-consortium plaintiff;

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4866 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 4

1

2.

2

The spouse or significant family member of the Plaintiff if there is no
loss-of-consortium plaintiff;

3

3.

The implanting physician;

4

4.

One additional treating physician as selected by Defendants; and

5

5.

No more than one sales representative and/or supervisor as selected

6

by Plaintiffs.

7

B.

8

Examination of treating physicians.
1.

By no later than February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs shall identify the

9

physicians whom they have a good faith belief they would call as

10

witnesses in their case in chief for each of the Discovery Group 1

11

cases. By no later than February 24, 2017, Defendants shall identify

12

any physician not identified by Plaintiffs whom they have a good

13

faith belief they would call in their case in chief for each of the

14

Discovery Group 1 cases.

15

2.

16

For any physician deposed in Discovery Group 1:
a.

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be the first examiner for any physician

17

Plaintiffs have identified by February 15, 2017 as a witness

18

they would call in their case in chief; and

19

b.

Defendants’ counsel shall be the first examiner for any

20

physician Defendants have identified by February 24, 2017 as

21

a witness they would call in their case in chief.

22

C.

23
24
25
26
27

Nothing in this Order is intended to limit additional fact discovery in cases
selected for inclusion in Bellwether Group 1.

III.

PROTOCOLS RELATING TO TREATING PHYSICIANS
A.

Ex Parte Communications with Treating Physicians
1.

Defendants are prohibited from communicating ex parte with
Plaintiffs’ treating physicians.

28
-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4866 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 4

1

2.

2
3
4

Plaintiffs’ counsel may communicate ex parte with treating
physicians.

B.

Disclosure of Documents Prior to Depositions of Treating Physicians
1.

If Plaintiffs’ counsel has communicated ex parte with a treating

5

physician who will be deposed, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall identify by

6

production bates number (or by providing a copy if no such bates

7

numbers exist) to opposing counsel all documents provided, shown,

8

read from, or otherwise specifically described to the witness, other

9

than the physician’s records of treatment, at least five (5) days prior

10
11

to the deposition.
2.

For ex parte meetings with a physician that take place less than five

12

(5) days prior to the deposition:

13

a.

at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

14

identify by production bates number (or by providing a copy if

15

no such bates numbers exist) to opposing counsel all

16

documents they intend to provide, show, read from, or

17

otherwise specifically describe to the witness, other than the

18

physician’s records of treatment;

19

b.

as soon as practicable after the meeting, Plaintiffs’ counsel

20

shall disclose to opposing counsel all documents that were

21

actually provided, shown, read from, or otherwise specifically

22

described to the witness, other than the physician’s records of

23

treatment.

24

3.

At least five (5) days prior to a physician deposition, all examining

25

counsel shall provide to opposing counsel and deponent’s counsel

26

copies of documents that may be shown to the witness during the

27

deposition or about which counsel expects to examine a deponent,

28
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 4866 Filed 02/06/17 Page 4 of 4

1

other than the physician’s records of treatment. The obligations of

2

this section include the good faith representations of counsel to

3

identify only those documents actually intended to be utilized during

4

the deposition, not to exceed 40 in number.

5

Dated this 6th day of February, 2017.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5770 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC

Litigation,

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 23

10
11
12
13

The Court held a 9th case management conference on May 3, 2017.

The

14

conference addressed ongoing matters identified in the parties’ joint report. Doc. 5708.

15

The following matters were decided.

16

A.

Deadline for Expert Depositions.
The Court extended the deadline for completing expert depositions to July 31,

17
18

2017.

19

B.

Bellwether Cases.

20

The Court heard oral arguments on which cases should be selected for bellwether

21

trials. After considering the parties’ arguments and their detailed submissions, the Court

22

selects the following five bellwether cases: Mulkey, Hyde, Jones, Kruse, and Booker.

23

The Court will not choose a sixth bellwether case at this time. The Court finds

24

that Nelson, a strong candidate, is very similar to Jones, and therefore may not provide

25

the range of information hoped for from bellwether trials. The Court finds Peterson to be

26

a strong candidate, but selecting Peterson would mean that 33% of the bellwether trials

27

involve open surgeries when only 6% of the cases in this MDL involve such surgeries,

28

making the overall mix less than fully representative. Tinlin presents the same issue as

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5770 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 4

1

Peterson, and also involves an extremely ill plaintiff who would be required to travel

2

from out of state and endure the rigors of trial. For reasons stated on the record, the

3

Court does not view King or Mixson as helpful bellwether cases. The DeWitt case

4

includes some uncertainty due to surgery scheduled this month, but may be a candidate

5

when the sixth case is selected.

6

The Court will select the sixth bellwether case from Discovery Group 1 after two

7

bellwether trials have been completed.1 Because each bellwether trial will last up to three

8

weeks, and the Court has a full docket to manage in the interim, it is likely that trials of

9

the bellwether cases will spread over more than one year. Thus, there will be time to

10

complete the case-specific discovery and motion practice for a sixth bellwether trial after

11

two bellwether trials have been completed. In choosing the sixth case, the Court will take

12

into account the results of the first two trials and will endeavor to select a case that will

13

produce the most representative bellwether trials possible from Discovery Group 1.

14

Plaintiffs want to re-depose doctors in the Hyde case. The parties should address

15

this issue in the joint status report they present for the next status conference. The parties

16

should include relevant examples of testimony or objections from the depositions of

17

Hyde’s doctors to illustrate their respective positions.

18

C.

Daubert and Summary Judgment Motions.

19

By August 21, 2017, the parties shall file Daubert motions and any motions for

20

summary judgment on the five bellwether cases identified above. Responses shall be

21

filed by September 22, 2017. Replies shall be filed by October 13, 2017.2

22

D.

Science Day.

23

The Court will likely schedule a science day during the next status conference.

24

The science day will be held shortly before oral arguments on the Daubert and summary

25

judgment motions.

26
1

27
28

Although the Court declines to order the trials now, it may make sense to try
Jones and Booker first in order to facilitate a more informed selection of the sixth case.
2

This schedule is a bit longer than the parties proposed, due to the large number of
possible motions the parties described during the case management conference.
-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5770 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 4

1

E.

Defendants’ Preemption Motion.

2

The Court declines to accept Plaintiffs’ proposal that this motion be briefed

3

initially solely on the law. A decision on law-only arguments would not be possible until

4

late June at the earliest, and may need to be followed by discovery and re-briefing. Such

5

potential delay would be unwise in light of the demands on the parties and the Court that

6

will arise this fall due to the Daubert and summary judgment motions.

7

The Court will allow Plaintiffs to depose Mr. Carr and Mr. Van Vleet on matters

8

addressed in Defendants’ summary judgment motion. These depositions shall not exceed

9

four hours each. The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs should be permitted to present

10

expert opinions in opposition to Defendants’ preemption motion, if they choose. Because

11

the parties did not address a possible schedule for production of relevant expert opinions

12

and depositions of those experts, the Court is unable to set a specific schedule. The Court

13

directs the parties to confer and agree, if possible, on a procedure and schedule for

14

completing the Carr and Van Vleet depositions and necessary expert discovery, followed

15

by completion of briefing on the preemption motion. The parties shall include a briefing

16

schedule for Defendants’ motion to seal documents related to the preemption motion.

17

The parties should present their agreement to the Court, or their respective positions if

18

they are unable to agree, by May 12, 2017.

19

submissions and set an appropriate schedule.

20

F.

21

The Court will review the parties’

Other Matters.
1.

The Court will set a date for remanding mature cases at a future status

22

conference. The cases cannot be remanded until Daubert motions are decided, and the

23

amount of time required to decide those motions is presently unclear.

24
25
26
27

2.

The Court agreed that Dr. Desai may be deposed on June 6, 2017 in the

Barazza class action.
3.

The parties indicated that there may be between 17 and 20 Daubert motions

filed in August. If so, the Court will not be able to decide all of those motions before the

28

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5770 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 4

1

end of this year.3 The Court hopes to have them all decided by year’s end. This will

2

permit bellwether trials to begin in early 2018.

3

4.

The parties and the Court discussed changes to the proposed bellwether

4

protocol. If the parties have not already done so, they shall submit a revised version to

5

the Court promptly.

6

5.

The Court will hold another case management conference on July 13, 2017

7

at 4:00 p.m. The dial-in information for the case management conference is: 888-240-

8

3210, access code: 2194741. The parties on the phone are reminded to mute their phones

9

once connected to the conference call line to minimize the amount of background noise.

10
11

The parties shall provide a joint status report by July 7, 2017.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2017.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3

27
28

As the current chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure for the
federal courts, the undersigned must attend six meetings outside Arizona in September,
October, and November. This travel schedule, plus the Court’s regular docket, means the
Court will not be able to decide this volume of Daubert and summary judgment motions
within a month or two.
-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5881 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10
11

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-2641-PHX DGC
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 23

12

(Discovery Protocols for Bellwether
Group 1)

13
14
15

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 11 [Doc. 1662], No. 18 [Doc. 3685],

16

No. 19 [Doc. 4311], No. 20 [Doc. 4335], and No. 21 [Doc. 4866], the Court enters this

17

Case Management Order No. 23 regarding discovery to be conducted specific to the cases

18

in Bellwether Group 1.

19

I.

DEPOSITION PROTOCOLS GENERALLY

20

A.

Case Management Order No. 14 shall apply to Bellwether Group 1.

21

B.

The additional protocols of this Case Management Order shall also apply to
Bellwether Group 1 as provided herein.

22
23
24

II.

FACT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PERMITTED
A.

Commencing three (3) days after the Court’s selection of the Bellwether

25

Group 1 cases, the Parties may each take not more than five depositions of

26

case relevant fact (non-expert) witnesses in each case that is part of

27

Bellwether Group I. These depositions may include Bard present or former

28

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5881 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 5

1

employees only if the depositions will likely produce probative evidence

2

that could not reasonably have been obtained during general discovery.

3

B.

Court.

4
5

The parties may exceed this number by mutual agreement or Order of the

C.

The parties shall make a good faith effort to identify the case relevant fact

6

witnesses they intend to depose in each case in accordance with Section

7

II.A. above, and exchange lists of those witnesses by May 12, 2017.

8

D.

Thereafter, the parties shall make a good faith effort, on a rolling basis, and

9

in accordance with Section II.A. above, to identify any additional case

10

relevant witnesses they intend to depose, as soon as those witnesses become

11

known to them or they determine the need to depose the witness.

12

E.

Should either party object to the taking of a deposition proposed by the

13

other party, including objecting that one or more of the identified case

14

specific depositions are disproportionate to the needs of the case (even if the

15

requesting party has not exceeded the numerical limitation set forth in

16

Section II.A. above), the parties will meet and confer on that issue, and

17

failing resolution, shall notify the Court of their need for a ruling on the

18

propriety of deposing such witness(es).

19
20

F.

Examination of treating physicians.
1.

By no later than five (5) days following the Court's selection of

21

Bellwether Group 1, Plaintiffs shall supplement the list they provided

22

pursuant to CMO 21 of physicians whom they have a good faith

23

belief they would call as witnesses in their case in chief for each

24

Bellwether Group 1 case. By no later than ten (10) days thereafter,

25

Defendants shall supplement the list they provided pursuant to CMO

26

21 of physicians not identified by Plaintiffs whom Defendants have a

27
28
-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5881 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 5

1

good faith belief they would call in their case in chief for each

2

Bellwether Group 1 case.
2.

3

For any physician deposed in Bellwether Group 1:

4

a. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be the first examiner for any physician

5

Plaintiffs identified in response to Paragraph II.B.1 of CMO 21 or

6

they have identified timely under Para. II. B. 1 to this Order; and

7

b. Defendants' counsel shall be the first examiner for any physician

8

Defendants identified in response to Paragraph II.B.1 of CMO 21

9

or they have identified timely under Para. II. B. 1 to this Order.

10
11

III.

PROTOCOLS RELATING TO TREATING PHYSICIANS
A.

Ex Parte Communications with Treating Physicians
1.

12

Plaintiffs’ treating physicians.

13
2.

14

17

Plaintiffs’ counsel may communicate ex parte with treating
physicians.

15
16

Defendants are prohibited from communicating ex parte with

B.

Disclosure of Documents Prior to Depositions of Treating Physicians
1.

If Plaintiffs' counsel has communicated ex parte with a treating

18

physician who will be deposed, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify by

19

production bates number (or by providing a copy if no such bates

20

numbers exist) to opposing counsel all documents provided, shown,

21

read from, or otherwise specifically described to the witness, other

22

than the physician's records of treatment, at least five (5) days prior

23

to the deposition, those five days to include and count weekends and

24

holidays.

25
26

2.

For ex parte meetings with a physician that take place less than five
(5) days prior to the deposition:

27
28
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5881 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 5

1

a. at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, counting weekends and

2

holidays, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify by production bates

3

number (or by providing a copy if no such bates numbers exist) to

4

opposing counsel all documents they intend to provide, show,

5

read from, or otherwise specifically describe to the witness, other

6

than the physician's records of treatment;

7

b. as soon as practicable after the meeting, Plaintiffs' counsel shall

8

disclose to opposing counsel all documents that were actually

9

provided, shown, read from, or otherwise specifically described to
the witness, other than the physician's records of treatment.

10
3.

11

At least five (5) days, counting weekends and holidays, prior to a

12

physician deposition, all examining counsel shall provide to opposing

13

counsel and deponent’s counsel copies of documents that may be

14

shown to the witness during the deposition or about which counsel

15

expects to examine a deponent, other than the physician’s records of

16

treatment. The obligations of this section include the good faith

17

representations of counsel to identify only those documents actually

18

intended to be utilized during the deposition, not to exceed 40 in

19

number.

20
21

IV.

EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS
A.

Commencing on June 20, 2017 and no later than July 30, 2017, the parties

22

may take the depositions of all case specific expert witnesses disclosed for

23

Bellwether Group 1 cases, limited to their case specific opinions if those

24

witnesses are also experts previously disclosed as general MDL experts.

25
26
27
28
-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5881 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3

V.

TRIAL DEPOSITIONS
A.

For good cause shown, and either by stipulation of the Parties or order of the

Court, trial preservation testimony of previously deposed witnesses will be permitted.

4
5

Dated this 18th day of May, 2017.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5883 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

10
11

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability
Litigation,

No. MDL 15-2641-PHX DGC
AMENDED

12

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 24

13

(Discovery Protocols for Bellwether
Group 1)

14
15
16

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 11 [Doc. 1662], No. 18 [Doc. 3685],

17

No. 19 [Doc. 4311], No. 20 [Doc. 4335], and No. 21 [Doc. 4866], the Court enters this

18

Case Management Order No. 24 regarding discovery to be conducted specific to the cases

19

in Bellwether Group 1.

20

I.

DEPOSITION PROTOCOLS GENERALLY

21

A.

Case Management Order No. 14 shall apply to Bellwether Group 1.

22

B.

The additional protocols of this Case Management Order shall also apply to
Bellwether Group 1 as provided herein.

23
24
25

II.

FACT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS PERMITTED
A.

Commencing three (3) days after the Court’s selection of the Bellwether

26

Group 1 cases, the Parties may each take not more than five depositions of

27

case relevant fact (non-expert) witnesses in each case that is part of

28

Bellwether Group I. These depositions may include Bard present or former

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5883 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 5

1

employees only if the depositions will likely produce probative evidence

2

that could not reasonably have been obtained during general discovery.

3

B.

Court.

4
5

The parties may exceed this number by mutual agreement or Order of the

C.

The parties shall make a good faith effort to identify the case relevant fact

6

witnesses they intend to depose in each case in accordance with Section

7

II.A. above, and exchange lists of those witnesses by May 12, 2017.

8

D.

Thereafter, the parties shall make a good faith effort, on a rolling basis, and

9

in accordance with Section II.A. above, to identify any additional case

10

relevant witnesses they intend to depose, as soon as those witnesses become

11

known to them or they determine the need to depose the witness.

12

E.

Should either party object to the taking of a deposition proposed by the

13

other party, including objecting that one or more of the identified case

14

specific depositions are disproportionate to the needs of the case (even if the

15

requesting party has not exceeded the numerical limitation set forth in

16

Section II.A. above), the parties will meet and confer on that issue, and

17

failing resolution, shall notify the Court of their need for a ruling on the

18

propriety of deposing such witness(es).

19
20

F.

Examination of treating physicians.
1.

By no later than five (5) days following the Court's selection of

21

Bellwether Group 1, Plaintiffs shall supplement the list they provided

22

pursuant to CMO 21 of physicians whom they have a good faith

23

belief they would call as witnesses in their case in chief for each

24

Bellwether Group 1 case. By no later than ten (10) days thereafter,

25

Defendants shall supplement the list they provided pursuant to CMO

26

21 of physicians not identified by Plaintiffs whom Defendants have a

27
28
-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5883 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 5

1

good faith belief they would call in their case in chief for each

2

Bellwether Group 1 case.
2.

3

For any physician deposed in Bellwether Group 1:

4

a. Plaintiffs' counsel shall be the first examiner for any physician

5

Plaintiffs identified in response to Paragraph II.B.1 of CMO 21 or

6

they have identified timely under Para. II. B. 1 to this Order; and

7

b. Defendants' counsel shall be the first examiner for any physician

8

Defendants identified in response to Paragraph II.B.1 of CMO 21

9

or they have identified timely under Para. II. B. 1 to this Order.

10
11

III.

PROTOCOLS RELATING TO TREATING PHYSICIANS
A.

Ex Parte Communications with Treating Physicians
1.

12

Plaintiffs’ treating physicians.

13
2.

14

17

Plaintiffs’ counsel may communicate ex parte with treating
physicians.

15
16

Defendants are prohibited from communicating ex parte with

B.

Disclosure of Documents Prior to Depositions of Treating Physicians
1.

If Plaintiffs' counsel has communicated ex parte with a treating

18

physician who will be deposed, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify by

19

production bates number (or by providing a copy if no such bates

20

numbers exist) to opposing counsel all documents provided, shown,

21

read from, or otherwise specifically described to the witness, other

22

than the physician's records of treatment, at least five (5) days prior

23

to the deposition, those five days to include and count weekends and

24

holidays.

25
26

2.

For ex parte meetings with a physician that take place less than five
(5) days prior to the deposition:

27
28
-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5883 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 5

1

a. at least 24 hours prior to the meeting, counting weekends and

2

holidays, Plaintiffs' counsel shall identify by production bates

3

number (or by providing a copy if no such bates numbers exist) to

4

opposing counsel all documents they intend to provide, show,

5

read from, or otherwise specifically describe to the witness, other

6

than the physician's records of treatment;

7

b. as soon as practicable after the meeting, Plaintiffs' counsel shall

8

disclose to opposing counsel all documents that were actually

9

provided, shown, read from, or otherwise specifically described to
the witness, other than the physician's records of treatment.

10
3.

11

At least five (5) days, counting weekends and holidays, prior to a

12

physician deposition, all examining counsel shall provide to opposing

13

counsel and deponent’s counsel copies of documents that may be

14

shown to the witness during the deposition or about which counsel

15

expects to examine a deponent, other than the physician’s records of

16

treatment. The obligations of this section include the good faith

17

representations of counsel to identify only those documents actually

18

intended to be utilized during the deposition, not to exceed 40 in

19

number.

20
21

IV.

EXPERT WITNESS DEPOSITIONS
A.

Commencing on June 20, 2017 and no later than July 30, 2017, the parties

22

may take the depositions of all case specific expert witnesses disclosed for

23

Bellwether Group 1 cases, limited to their case specific opinions if those

24

witnesses are also experts previously disclosed as general MDL experts.

25
26
27
28
-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 5883 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3

V.

TRIAL DEPOSITIONS
A.

For good cause shown, and either by stipulation of the Parties or order of the

Court, trial preservation testimony of previously deposed witnesses will be permitted.

4
5

Dated this 19th day of May, 2017.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6227 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC

Litigation,

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 25

10
11

(Bellwether Group
Discovery Schedule)

12

1

Amended

13
14
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties to amend the discovery schedule for the

15
16

cases in Bellwether Group 1,
I T I S O R D E R E D amending the Bellwether Discovery Schedule, the new

17
18

schedule is as follows:

19

Action

20

Plaintiffs’ case-specific expert disclosures

21
22

Defendants’ case-specific expert

25

Case-specific rebuttal expert disclosures for
Bellwether Group 1
Deadline for completion of additional casespecific medical witness depositions for
Bellwether Group 1

26

Deadline for case-specific expert

27

Deadline for completion of additional casespecific discovery other than medical
witness depositions for Bellwether Group 1

23
24

28

Date/deadline
June 5, 2017
July 3, 2017
July 17, 2017
August 7, 2017

August 7, 2017
August 15, 2017

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6227 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 2

1

This Order amends and replaces the dates set forth in Case Management Order No.

2

20 with respect to the same deadlines for Bellwether Group 1.

3

Dated this 6th day of June, 2017.

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

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6799 Filed 07/17/17 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC

Litigation,

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
NO. 26

10
11
12
13
14

The Court held a tenth case management conference on July 13, 2017. The

15

conference addressed ongoing matters identified in the parties’ joint report. Doc. 6599.

16

The following matters are decided.

17

A.

18

In order to decide whether Dr. Henry should be re-deposed, the Court must decide

19

whether the objections asserted in his first deposition were appropriate. On or before

20

July 28, 2017, the parties shall file memoranda, not to exceed 12 pages, addressing the

21

following issues: (1) Does Federal Rule of Evidence 501 apply to the privilege asserted

22

by Dr. Henry’s counsel? (2) If so, what state law supplies the rule of decision within the

23

meaning of Rule 501? (3) Does the applicable state law support the objection and

24

instruction made by Dr. Henry’s attorney? (4) Even if the instruction and objection were

25

appropriate in the normal case, does assertion of the learned intermediary defense mean

26

that the objection and instruction should not be permitted?

27
28

Dr. Henry Deposition.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6799 Filed 07/17/17 Page 2 of 5

1

B.

2

Case Management Order No. 24 addressed fact depositions in bellwether cases:

3

“These depositions may include Bard present or former employees only if the depositions

4

will likely produce probative evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained

5

during general discovery.” Doc. 5883 at 1-2. After considering the parties’ arguments,

6

the Court concludes that the evidence Plaintiffs now seek to elicit from Dr. Altonaga

7

could reasonably have been obtained during general discovery. Plaintiffs do not seek

8

facts unique to any of the bellwether cases, but instead to obtain Bard information that

9

existed at the time of the design, sale, and use of the various filters at issue in the

Proposed Deposition of Dr. Altonaga.

10

bellwether cases.

11

discovery, Plaintiffs clearly understood that most of the cases in this MDL concern the

12

G2-series or Eclipse filters, and could have deposed Dr. Altonaga during general

13

discovery regarding facts related to those filters and the years in which they were offered

14

for sale. As a result, the requirement of CMO 24 is not satisfied and the Court will not

15

permit Plaintiffs to depose Dr. Altonaga as part of bellwether-case discovery.

While bellwether cases had not been identified during general

16

C.

17

The Court and parties held a discussion regarding the discoverability of

18

communications between Plaintiffs’ experts, with the Court attempting to provide some

19

guidance on its interpretation of Rule 26(b)(4). Plaintiffs shall produce communications

20

among their experts to Defendants. If Plaintiffs conclude that any such communications

21

are properly withheld, they shall provide Defendants with a privilege log that identifies

22

the specific basis on which Plaintiffs’ conclude that the communications are protected

23

under Rule 26(b). If the parties have disagreements after this production has occurred,

24

they should place a conference call to the Court for a resolution.

Communications Among Plaintiffs’ Experts.

25

D.

26

The Court sets the following schedule for completion of briefing on Defendants’

27

Preemption Motion Briefing.

preemption motion for summary judgment:

28

-2-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6799 Filed 07/17/17 Page 3 of 5

1

 Plaintiffs’ experts on preemption shall be disclosed by July 21, 2017;

2

 Defense experts on preemption, if sought by Defendants and allowed by

3

the Court after a conference call, shall be disclosed by August 4, 2017;

4

 Preemption experts shall be deposed by August 18, 2017;

5

 Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion shall be filed by

6

September 1, 2017;
 Defendants’ reply shall be filed by September 22, 2017.

7
8

Defendants’ motion to seal exhibits will be briefed on the following schedule:
 Defendants’ amended motion to seal shall be filed on or before July 28,

9
10

2017;

11

 Plaintiffs’ response shall be filed on or before August 28, 2017;

12

 Defendants’ reply shall be filed on or before September 13, 2017.

13

E.

14

The Court will allow 45 minutes per side for oral argument at the class

15

certification hearing on August 11, 2017. The Court does not expect this to be an

16

evidentiary hearing.

Class Certification Hearing.

17

F.

18

The next case management conference will be held on October 5, 2017, at 10:00

19

a.m. The parties shall file a joint report seven days before the conference.

20
21

Next Case Management Conference and Science Day.

A science day will also be held on October 5, 2017. The Court will set aside two
hours per side for science presentations.

22

G.

23

Plaintiffs shall respond to the recently filed motion to disqualify Drs. Vogelzang

24

and Desai by July 28, 2017. Defendants shall file a reply by August 4, 2017. The Court

25

will endeavor to review this motion before the class certification hearing on August 11,

26

2017.

Motions to Disqualify Experts.

27
28

-3-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6799 Filed 07/17/17 Page 4 of 5

1

H.

2

The Court and the parties discussed preparation for and scheduling of bellwether

3

trials. The Court advised the parties that it cannot know whether bellwether trials will be

4

possible in the first quarter of 2018 until it sees the volume and substance of the Daubert

5

motions and motions for summary judgment to be filed in late August. The Court and

6

parties will address the scheduling of bellwether trials on October 5, 2017.

Bellwether Trial Issues.

7

The Court advised the parties that it may be very difficult for the Court to conduct

8

all six bellwether trials within a 12 or 18 month period, given the Court’s docket and

9

administrative responsibilities. The Court raised the possibility of enlisting other judges

10

to try some of the bellwether cases. If such an approach were taken, the trials probably

11

could be scheduled over the course of a year or 18 months, dates could be blocked out,

12

and the other judges could be identified. The parties should address this issue in the joint

13

report to be filed before the conference on October 5, 2017.

14

The Court advised the parties of its practices regarding a final pretrial conference

15

and motions in limine. The Court also stated that it would be willing to entertain the

16

possibility of juror questionnaires.

17

I.

18

The Court and parties discussed choice of law issues that might arise in the

19

bellwether cases. The Court asked the parties to discuss this issue and see if they can

20

agree on a method for briefing. It may be that such briefing needs to occur as part of the

21

summary judgment briefing, particularly since a choice of law will not be necessary

22

unless the law of the possible jurisdictions is in conflict on specific points raised in the

23

summary judgment briefing. If the parties need the Court’s guidance on this matter

24

before summary judgment briefs are filed, they may place a telephone call to the Court.

Other Matters.

25

The Court will also require the parties to discuss bellwether summary judgment

26

motions before they are filed on August 21, 2017. The purpose of such discussion will be

27

to identify claims that Plaintiffs intend to assert in each of the bellwether cases and

28

arguments Defendants intend to make with respect to such claims. The parties should

-4-

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 6799 Filed 07/17/17 Page 5 of 5

1

endeavor to focus and streamline the briefing wherever possible. If issues are to be

2

addressed that apply to some or all of the bellwether cases, they should be briefed only

3

once. The parties should also endeavor to make the statements of fact as efficient as

4

possible.

5

Dated this 14th day of July, 2017.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-