Conti v. Ethicon, Inc. et al

Filing 130

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motion re: Shelby Thames, Ph.D.) The court DENIES in part, GRANTS in part, and RESERVES in part the Motion filed in MDL 2327 by Certain Plaintiffs in Wave 1 Cases to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Shelby Thames, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 9/2/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2327; Cases Listed on Exhibit) (bdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:

ETHICON, INC.
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2327
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Cases Identified in the Exhibit
Attached Hereto
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Daubert Motion re: Shelby Thames, Ph.D.)
Pending before the court is the Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony
of Shelby Thames [ECF No. 2039] filed by the plaintiffs. The Motion is now ripe for
consideration because briefing is complete.
I.

Background

This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat
pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”). In the seven
MDLs, there are more than 75,000 cases currently pending, approximately 30,000 of
which are in this MDL, which involves defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon,
Inc. (collectively “Ethicon”), among others.
In this MDL, the court’s tasks include “resolv[ing] pretrial issues in a timely
and expeditious manner” and “resolv[ing] important evidentiary disputes.” Barbara
J. Rothstein & Catherine R. Borden, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Managing Multidistrict

Litigation in Products Liability Cases 3 (2011). To handle motions to exclude or to
limit expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993), the court developed a specific procedure. In Pretrial Order
(“PTO”) No. 217, the court instructed the parties to file only one Daubert motion per
challenged expert, to file each motion in the main MDL—as opposed to the individual
member cases—and to identify which cases would be affected by the motion. PTO No.
217, at 4.1
II.

Preliminary Matters

Before plunging into the heart of the Motion, a few preliminary matters need
to be addressed.
I am compelled to comment on the parties’ misuse of my previous Daubert
rulings on several of the experts offered in this case. See generally Sanchez v. Bos.

Sci. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 4851989 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 29, 2014); Tyree
v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 501 (S.D. W. Va. 2014); Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
57 F. Supp. 3d 658 (S.D. W. Va. 2014). The parties have, for the most part, structured
their Daubert arguments as a response to these prior rulings, rather than an
autonomous challenge to or defense of expert testimony based on its reliability and
relevance. In other words, the parties have comparatively examined expert testimony
and have largely overlooked Daubert’s core considerations for assessing expert
testimony. Although I recognize the tendency of my prior evidentiary determinations

The plaintiffs identified the Wave 1 cases affected by this Motion in their attached Exhibit A [ECF
No. 2039-1], which the court has attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. At the time of
transfer or remand, the parties will be required to designate relevant pleadings from MDL 2327,
including the motion, supporting memorandum, response, reply, and exhibits referenced herein.
1

2

to influence subsequent motions practice, counsels’ expectations that I align with
these previous rulings when faced with a different record are misplaced, especially
when an expert has issued new reports and given additional deposition testimony.
Mindful of my role as gatekeeper for the admission of expert testimony, as well
as my duty to “respect[ ] the individuality” of each MDL case, see In re

Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006), I refuse
to credit Daubert arguments that simply react to the court’s rulings in Sanchez and
its progeny. Indeed, I feel bound by these earlier cases only to the extent that the
expert testimony and Daubert objections presented to the court then are identical to
those presented now. Otherwise, I assess the parties’ Daubert arguments anew. That
is, in light of the particular expert testimony and objections currently before me, I
assess “whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is
scientifically valid” and “whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be
applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. Any departure from

Sanchez, Eghnayem, or Tyree does not constitute a “reversal” of these decisions and
is instead the expected result of the parties’ submission of updated expert reports and
new objections to the expert testimony contained therein.
Finally, I have attempted to resolve all possible disputes before transfer or
remand, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony pursuant to

Daubert. Nevertheless, in some instances I face Daubert challenges where my
interest in accuracy counsels reserving ruling until the reliability of the expert
testimony may be evaluated at trial. At trial, the expert testimony will be tested by

3

precise questions asked and answered. The alternative of live Daubert hearings is
impossible before transfer or remand because of the numerosity of such motions in
these seven related MDLs. As these MDLs have grown and the expert testimony has
multiplied, I have become convinced that the critical gatekeeping function permitting
or denying expert testimony on decisive issues in these cases is best made with a live
expert on the witness stand subject to vigorous examination.
In the course of examining a multitude of these very similar cases involving
the same fields of expertise, I have faced irreconcilably divergent expert testimony
offered by witnesses with impeccable credentials, suggesting, to me, an unreasonable
risk of unreliability. The danger—and to my jaded eye, the near certainty—of the
admission of “junk science” looms large in this mass litigation.
The parties regularly present out-of-context statements, after-the-fact
rationalizations of expert testimony, and incomplete deposition transcripts. This,
combined with the above-described practice of recycling expert testimony, objections,
and the court’s prior rulings, creates the perfect storm of obfuscation. Where further
clarity is necessary, I believe it can only be achieved through live witness testimony—
not briefing—I will therefore reserve ruling until expert testimony can be evaluated
firsthand.
III.

Legal Standard

By now, the parties should be intimately familiar with Rule 702 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence and Daubert, so the court will not linger for long on these
standards.

4

Expert testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified and if his or her expert
testimony is reliable and relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at
597. An expert may be qualified to offer expert testimony based on his or her
“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Reliability
may turn on the consideration of several factors:
(1) whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested;
(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and
publication; (3) whether a technique has a high known or
potential rate of error and whether there are standards
controlling its operation; and (4) whether the theory or
technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant
scientific community.

Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert,
509 U.S. at 592–94). But these factors are neither necessary to nor determinative of
reliability in all cases; the inquiry is flexible and puts “principles and methodology”
above conclusions and outcomes. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; see also Kumho Tire Co.

v. Carmichael, 525 U.S. 137, 141, 150 (1999). Finally, and simply, relevance turns on
whether the expert testimony relates to any issues in the case. See, e.g., Daubert, 509
U.S. at 591–92 (discussing relevance and helpfulness).
At bottom, the court has broad discretion to determine whether expert
testimony should be admitted or excluded. Cooper, 259 F.3d at 200.
IV.

Discussion

Dr. Thames is a polymer chemist with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry. In 1969,
Dr. Thames founded the Department of Polymer Science at the University of
Southern Mississippi, and he has served as the Dean of the College of Science. Dr.

5

Thames’s has researched and designed polymers for various uses.
a. Properties

First, the plaintiffs challenge multiple statements made in Dr. Thames’s
expert report that are related to degradation and the support—or lack thereof—found
in Ethicon’s seven-year dog study. The plaintiffs argue that this testimony is
unreliable because Dr. Thames contradicts himself and misstates the study’s
findings. I do not find any of Dr. Thames’s supposed self-contradictions to warrant
exclusion. Nor is Dr. Thames’s testimony unreliably contradictory to the extent it
uses the dog study to support his opinion that Prolene “does not undergo meaningful
or harmful degradation in vivo.” Thames Report 6 [ECF No. 2039-3]. I do agree,
however, with the plaintiffs’ argument that Dr. Thames has occasionally misstated
the dog study’s specific findings as to molecular weight. Specifically, although the
study reported no significant difference in molecular weights, Dr. Thames reports the
study as finding no molecular weight change. See, e.g., Thames Report 9. Insofar as
Dr. Thames’s testimony mischaracterizes the dog study’s results on molecular weight
change, it is EXCLUDED and the plaintiffs’ Motion on this point is GRANTED.

Second, the plaintiffs challenge the reliability of Dr. Thames’s opinion that the
data collected from the seven-year dog study “validates toughness improvement after
initial implantation.” Mem. 5 [ECF No. 2042] (citing Thames Report 9). The plaintiffs
disagree with the manner in which Dr. Thames has defined and measured
“toughness.” But the plaintiffs provide no support for their differing conception of the
term or how it is most appropriately measured. Additionally, a review of Dr. Thames’s

6

expert report and Ethicon’s Response shows that he used a systematic method to plot
data collected in the dog study on strength and elongation that could reasonably be
said to relate to toughness. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ Motion on this matter is
DENIED.

Third, the plaintiffs challenge Dr. Thames’s opinions on translucent flakes
detected on Prolene explants and the presence of extrusion lines. These opinions,
however, are apparently contained in Dr. Thames’s case-specific expert report
regarding a particular Wave 1 plaintiff. As such, these objections are not
appropriately addressed in the instant Daubert motion, which was filed in the main
MDL and should challenge general causation opinions only. The plaintiffs’ Motion on
this matter is DENIED. Further, the plaintiffs’ Motion, insofar as it relates to the
cleaning protocol employed by Dr. Thames in his plaintiff-specific examination of
mesh, is similarly DENIED.
V.

Recurring Issues

Many of the Daubert motions filed in this MDL raise the same or similar
objections.
One particular issue has been a staple in this litigation, so I find it best to
discuss it in connection with every expert. A number of the Daubert motions seek to
exclude FDA testimony and other regulatory or industry standards testimony. To the
extent this Motion raises these issues it is GRANTED in part and RESERVED in
part as described below.
I have repeatedly excluded evidence regarding the FDA’s section 510(k)

7

clearance process in these MDLs, and will continue to do so in these case, a position
that has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 81 F.3d 913,
921–23 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding the determination that the probative value of
evidence related to section 510(k) was substantially outweighed by its possible
prejudicial impact under Rule 403). Because the section 510(k) clearance process does
not speak directly to safety and efficacy, it is of negligible probative value. See In re

C. R. Bard, 81 F.3d at 920 (“[T]he clear weight of persuasive and controlling authority
favors a finding that the 510(k) procedure is of little or no evidentiary value.”).
Delving into complex and lengthy testimony about regulatory compliance could
inflate the perceived importance of compliance and lead jurors “to erroneously
conclude that regulatory compliance proved safety.” Id. at 922. Accordingly, expert
testimony related to the section 510(k) process, including subsequent enforcement
actions and discussion of the information Ethicon did or did not submit in its section
510(k) application, is EXCLUDED. For the same reasons, opinions about Ethicon’s
compliance with or violation of the FDA’s labeling and adverse event reporting
regulations are EXCLUDED. In addition to representing inappropriate legal
conclusions, such testimony is not helpful to the jury in determining the facts at issue
in these cases and runs the risk of misleading the jury and confusing the issues.
Insofar as this Motion challenges the FDA-related testimony discussed here, the
Motion is GRANTED.
A number of experts also seek to opine on Ethicon’s compliance with design
control and risk management standards. Some of this testimony involves the FDA’s

8

quality systems regulations, and some—likely in an attempt to sidestep my
anticipated prohibition on FDA testimony—involve foreign regulations and
international standards. I find all of this proposed testimony of dubious relevance.
Although these standards relate to how a manufacturer should structure and
document risk assessment, the standards do not appear to mandate any particular
design feature or prescribe the actual balance that must be struck in weighing a
product’s risk and utility. Nor is it clear that the European and other international
standards discussed had any bearing on the U.S. medical device industry when the
device in question was being designed.
Nevertheless, because the nuances of products liability law vary by state, I will
refrain from issuing a blanket exclusion on design process and control standards
testimony, whether rooted in the FDA or otherwise. Each standard must be assessed
for its applicability to the safety questions at issue in this litigation, consistent with
state law. I am without sufficient information to make these findings at this time.
Accordingly, I RESERVE ruling on such matters until a hearing, where the trial
judge will have additional context to carefully evaluate the relevance and potential
prejudicial impact of specific testimony.
Similarly, I doubt the relevance of testimony on the adequacy of Ethicon’s
clinical testing and research, physician outreach, or particular product development
procedures and assessments otherwise not encompassed by the above discussion.
Again, such matters seem to say very little about the state of the product itself (i.e.,
whether or not it was defective) when it went on the market. But because the scope

9

of relevant testimony may vary according to differences in state products liability law,
I RESERVE ruling on such matters until they may be evaluated in proper context at
hearing before the trial court before or at trial.
Additional—and more broad—matters also warrant mention. While some of
these concerns may not apply to this particular expert, these concerns are raised so
frequently that they are worth discussing here

First, many of the motions seek to exclude state-of-mind and legal-conclusion
expert testimony. Throughout these MDLs, the court has prohibited the parties from
using experts to usurp the jury’s fact-finding function by allowing testimony of this
type, and I do the same here. E.g., In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 2d 589, 611
(S.D. W. Va. 2013); see also, e.g., United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550, 562 (4th Cir.
2006) (“[O]pinion testimony that states a legal standard or draws a legal conclusion
by applying law to the facts is generally inadmissible.”); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab.

Litig., 309 F. Supp. 2d 531, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Inferences about the intent and
motive of parties or others lie outside the bounds of expert testimony.”). Additionally,
an expert may not offer expert testimony using “legal terms of art,” such as
“defective,” “unreasonably dangerous,” or “proximate cause.” See Perez v. Townsend

Eng’g Co., 562 F. Supp. 2d 647, 652 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
Second, and on a related note, many of the motions seek to prohibit an expert
from parroting facts found in corporate documents and the like. I caution the parties
against introducing corporate evidence through expert witnesses. Although an expert
may testify about his review of internal corporate documents solely for the purpose

10

of explaining the basis for his or her expert opinions—assuming the expert opinions
are otherwise admissible—he or she may not offer testimony that is solely a conduit
for corporate information.

Third, many of the motions also ask the court to require an expert to offer
testimony consistent with that expert’s deposition or report or the like. The court will
not force an expert to testify one way or another. To the extent an expert offers
inconsistent testimony, the matter is more appropriately handled via crossexamination or impeachment as appropriate and as provided by the Federal Rules of
Evidence.

Fourth, in these Daubert motions, the parties have addressed tertiary
evidentiary matters like whether certain statements should be excluded as hearsay.
The court will not exclude an expert simply because a statement he or she discussed
may constitute hearsay. Cf. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. Hearsay objections are more
appropriately raised at trial.

Finally, in some of the Daubert motions, without identifying the specific expert
testimony to be excluded, the parties ask the court to prevent experts from offering
other expert testimony that the moving party claims the expert is not qualified to
offer. I decline to make speculative or advisory rulings. I decline to exclude testimony
where the party seeking exclusion does not provide specific content or context.
VI.

Conclusion

The court DENIES in part, GRANTS in part, and RESERVES in part the
Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Shelby Thames [ECF No. 2039].

11

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order in 2:12-md-2327 and in the Ethicon Wave 1 cases identified in the Exhibit
attached hereto.

ENTER:

12

September 2, 2016

Exhibit A

Exhibit A - Thames Case Identification
Case No.
Case Style
2:11 cv 00809
Wilma Johnson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00256
Amy and Brent Holland v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00258
Carrie Smith v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00261
Mary F. Cone v. Ethicon, et al.
_____________________________________________ WAVE 2
2:12 cv 00265
Doris Chappell Jackson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00276
Cathy and John Warlick v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00277
Joy and Kevin Essman v. Ethicon, et al.
Susan Thaman v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00279
2:12 cv 00286
Quillan R. and Thomas W. Garnett v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00322
Linda B. Ryan v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00335
Sandra Wolfe v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00337
Kathleen Wolfe v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00341
Helen M. Brown and Robert E. Ruttkay v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00344
Rose and Jesus Gomez v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00347
Deborah and Felipe Lozano v. Ethicon, et al.
Kathy Barton v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00351
__________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00352
Charlotte Hargrove v. Ethicon, et al.
Amanda and Raymond Deleon v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00358
2:12 cv 00368
Sharon and Michael Boggs v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00369
Dawna Hankins v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00376
Charlene Logan Taylor v. Ethicon, et al.
_______________________________________________ WAVE 2
Tina and Kenneth Morrow v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00378
2:12 cv 00379
Teri Key and Johnny Shively v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00380
Terrie S. and Ralph R. Gregory v. Ethicon, et al.
________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00381
Susan C. and Leonard Hayes v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00387
Maru LuEllen and Thomas Lawrence Kilday v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00389
Janice Renee Swaney v. Ethicon, et al.
________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00397
Deborah A. Smith v. Ethicon, et al.
Carol Jean Dimock v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00401
2:12 cv 00423
Pamela Free v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00443
Holy and Jason Jones v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00455
Pamela Gray Wheeler and Stan Wheeler v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00468
Amelia R. and Ernest B. Gonzales v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00469
Patricia Tyler v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00470
Mary Jane and Daniel Olson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00476
Harriet Beach v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00481
Miranda Patterson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00483
Carey Beth and David Cole v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00485
Danni Laffoon v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00486
Karen and Joel Forester v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00489
Melissa and Charles Clayton v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00490
Shirley and William Freeman v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00491
Gwendolyn T. Young v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00493
Nancy and Daniel Hooper v. Ethicon, et al.
Page 1

Case No.
Case Style
2:12 cv 00494
Penelope Ann Link and Dan Richard Saurino v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00495
Andrea Carol and Mark Thomas Chandlee v. Ethicon, et al.
Sonya M. and James R. Moreland v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00496
2:12 cv 00497
Dina Sanders Bennett v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00498
Myndal Johnson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00499
Kimberly Thomas v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00500
Krystal and Gregory Teasley v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00501
Jennifer and David Sikes v. Ethicon, et al.
______________________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00504
Donna T. and James W. Pilgreen v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00505
Mary and Kenneth Thurston v. Ethicon, et al.
__________________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00506
Martha and Stuart Newman v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00510
Charlene Miracle v. Ethicon, et al.
Nancy Williams v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00511
2:12 cv 00516
Patricia Conti v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00517
Joann Lehman v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00539
Ann Louise Ruppel and Robert Dean Fuller v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00540
Nancy and Kenneth Feidler v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00547
Brenda and James Riddell v. Ethicon, et al.
Rhoda Schachtman v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00548
2:12 cv 00554
Sharon and Gardner Carpenter v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00555
Carolyn Sue Doyle v. Ethicon, et al.
Noemi and Cesar Padilla v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00567
2:12 cv 00571
Mary Catherine Wise v. Ethicon, et al.
Beverly Kivel v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00591
2:12 cv 00594
Frances Ann and Herman Cortez v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00595
Mary and Thomas Hendrix v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00601
Deanna Jean and Bennie G. Thomas v. Ethicon, et al.
Patricia O. Powell v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00609
2:12 cv 00651
Robin Bridges v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00652
Maria C. and Mark A. Stone v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00654
Stacy and Kevin Shultis v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00657
Judy G. Williams v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00663
Ana Ruebel v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00666
Donna and Leon Loustaunau v. Ethicon, et al.
_______________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00669
Teresa and Ricky J. Stout v. Ethicon, et al.
______________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00679
Lisa and Henry Stevens v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00683
Louise Grabowski v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00736
Karen and Thomas Daniell v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00737
Beth and Stuart Harter v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00738
Sheri and Gary Scholl v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00746
Margaret Kirkpatrick v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00747
Karyn E. and Douglas E. Drake v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00748
Myra abd Richard Byrd v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00749
Jennifer D. and Willem C.J. Van Rensburg v. Ethicon, et al.
Page 2

Case No.
Case Style
2:12 cv 00751
Raquel and Ernesto De La Torre v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00755
Cheryl Lankston v. Ethicon, et al.
Dee and Michael Woolsey v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00756
2:12 cv 00757
Barbara Jean and Keith Bridges v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00759
Diane and Robert Matott v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00760
Lois and Gerald Durham v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00761
Barbara J. and Gary L. Ware v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00762
Janet D. Jones v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00765
Rachel and Dwan Taylor v. Ethicon, et al.
_______________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00766
Kimberly Garnto v. Ethicon, et al.
___________________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00767
Rebecca and Charles Oehring v. Ethicon, et al.
___________________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00768
Sandra and Christian LaBadie v. Ethicon, et al.
Kimberly T. Burnham v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00769
2:12 cv 00772
Harmony Minniefield v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00773
Tina and Keith Patterson v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00779
Dee and Timothy McBrayer v. Ethicon, et al.
2:12 cv 00783
Wendy Hagans v. Ethicon, et al.
_______________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00784
Schultz et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Swint et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00786
2:12 cv 00787
Joplin v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00799
Quijano v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Morrison et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00800
2:12 cv 00806
Hill et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Sweeney et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00807
2:12 cv 00811
Zoltowski et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
2:12 cv 00821
Barr et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
____________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00828
Nix et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Georgilakis et al v. Ethicon, Inc et at
2:12 cv 00829
___________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00830
Parrilla v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00842
Stubblefield v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00846
Raines et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00848
Fisk v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00854
Ballard et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00856
Massicot v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
_____________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00859
Olmstead v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00860
Pelton v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
______________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00861
Smith et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00863
Gunter et al v. Ethicon, Inc
2:12 cv 00864
Nolan v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00867
Rock v. Ethicon et al
2:12 cv 00873
Walker et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00875
Holzerland et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00876
Hoy et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00878
Fox et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al
Page 3

Case No.
Case Style
2:12 cv 00880
Massey et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00883
Wroble et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
__________________________________________________ CLOSED
Umberger et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00886
2:12 cv 00887
Kaiser et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
2:12 cv 00888
Bruhn et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 00899
Barker et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
__________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00921
Wilson v. Ethicon, Inc et al
___________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 00923
Atemnkeng et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00931
Collins v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00938
Kriz et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00939
Reyes et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00956
Justus v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Funderburke v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00957
2:12 cv 00958
White et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00960
Amsden et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00961
Greene v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00967
Shepherd v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00995
Blake et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Springer et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 00997
2:12 cv 01004
Frye v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01011
Hankins et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Lee et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01013
______________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 01018
Gwinn et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Ruiz v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01021
2:12 cv 01023
Burkhart v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01052
Babcock v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01053
Baugher v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Schnering et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01071
2:12 cv 01081
Dixon v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01088
Wheeler et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01090
Wright v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01119
Rhynehart v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01121
Guinn v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01124
Bellito Stanford et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01145
Constance Daino v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01146
Monica Freitas v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01148
Denise Sacchetti v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01149
Cindy Smith v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01150
Roberta Warmack v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01151
Laura Waynick v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01171
Patti Ann Phelps v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01198
Stacy Pangborn v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01199
Lisa Thompson v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01202
Diane Kropf v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Page 4

Case No.
Case Style
2:12 cv 01203
Joan Adams v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01206
Jeanie Holmes v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Karen Bollinger v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01215
2:12 cv 01216
Christine Wiltgen v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01225
Ida Deanne Evans v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
___________________________________________________ CLOSED
2:12 cv 01262
Saundra Landes v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01267
Angela Coleman v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01273
Rebekah Barlett v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01274
Janice Colonna v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01275
Long v. Johnson & Johnson et al
2:12 cv 01277
Duncan v. Ethicon, Inc et al
2:12 cv 01278
Nix v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Bertoni et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01279
2:12 cv 01283
Cyrus v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
____
2:12 cv 01284
Floyd v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Judith Gowin
2:12 cv 01285
Simpson et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01286
Wilson v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01293
Costello v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
______________________________________________ CLOSED
Herrera Nevarez v. Ethicon, Inc
2:12 cv 01294
2:12 cv 01299
Destefano Rasten et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01304
Irwin et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Lager v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
2:12 cv 01305
2:12 cv 01311
Ridgley et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
_____
Banks v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al Marie Smith
2:12 cv 01318

Page 5