TALLO v. ETHICON, INC. et al

Filing 39

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO PRECLUDE IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLAINTIFF AT HER OPTION MAY SUBSTITUTE DR. MICHAEL MARGOLIS, M.D. FOR ONE OF HTE CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESIGNATED.; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD A. MCHUGH ON 3/11/20. 3/12/20 ENTERED AND E-MAILED.(jl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA TALLO, Plaintiff, v. ETHICON WOMEN’S HEALTH AND UROLOGY, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 16-4974 ORDER This 11th day of March 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion (ECF 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Plaintiff at her option may substitute Dr. Michael Margolis, M.D. for one of the casespecific experts that have already been designated. Upon that substitution, Dr. Margolis may conduct a further medical examination of Plaintiff and draft a supplemental report updating his findings regarding Plaintiff’s condition. Plaintiffs must serve any such updated reports within 30 days of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs may submit Dr. Margolis’ updated report to any expert to whom it is relevant, and such experts may supplement their reports only to the extent that their opinions are changed as a result of Dr. Margolis’ updated exam. Plaintiffs must serve any such updated reports within 30 days after the completion of any further exam by Dr. Margolis. 3. Ethicon may, at its option, seek its own medical examination of Ms. Tallo, and if necessary, supplement its expert reports as set forth in paragraph 3 of this Order, subject to the same deadline for conducting the exam and production of any supplemental report. 4. The parties are otherwise restricted to the use of experts designated by each side in the MDL and may not engage in any substitutions. 5. All other deadlines set forth in the Case Scheduling Order (ECF 33) remain in effect. /s/ Gerald Austin McHugh United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?