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, )
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?