Winebarger et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 155

ORDER denying 132 Boston Scientific Corporation's Motion to Sever and Conduct Individual Trials. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 7/17/15. (smj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CASE NOS. 5:15CV57-RLV; 3:15CV211-RLV

ROMONA WINEBARGER,
and REX WINEBARGER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_________________________________
MARTHA CARLSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER is before the court on Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation’s (BSC)
Motion to Sever and Conduct Individual Trials, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition, and
Defendant’s Reply. (Docs. 133, 134, 137, 152).
On May 15, 2015, the undersigned consolidated these matters for trial sua sponte
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1). (Doc. 108). The Court consolidated these two cases for
trial upon initial review of the record, noting the existence of “common question[s] of law or
fact.” (Id.) BSC’s motion, although well taken, does not alter the Court’s view that
consolidation for trial is, in fact, proper. Significantly, the two consolidated trials that have
occurred to date within In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig.,

MDL No. 2326 − both involving the same BSC product − have been successfully and efficiently
litigated.1 As more thoroughly analyzed within Plaintiffs’ response, the common issues of law
and fact, as well as the Arnold factors, favor consolidation.2 (Doc. 137, 2−5). Similarly, the
Court finds that BSC will not be unduly prejudiced by consolidation. See e.g., Frankum v.
Boston Scientific Corp., 1:15CV91-MOC, June 22, 2015 (“[T]he court finds that any potential
jury confusion and prejudice can be avoided if the evidence is presented in an organized manner
and with proper jury instructions”). In short, consolidation of these two individual plaintiff’s
causes of action for trial is quite manageable and will serve the interests of justice. For these
reasons, BSC’s motion will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Boston Scientific Corporation’s Motion to Sever and
Conduct Individual Trials is hereby DENIED.

Signed: July 17, 2015

1

These cases are transferred to the Western District of North Carolina (the original transferor
court) from the Southern District of West Virginia (the original transferee court), In Re Boston Scientific
Corporation Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2326.
2

See Arnold v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982).