Schnering et al v. Ethicon, Inc.

Filing 133

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) (kll)

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

2:11
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12

Case No.
cv 00809
cv 00256
cv 00258
cv 00261
cv 00265
cv 00276
cv 00277
cv 00279
cv 00286
cv 00322
cv 00335
cv 00337
cv 00341
cv 00344
cv 00347
cv 00351
cv 00352
cv 00358
cv 00368
cv 00369
cv 00376
cv 00378
cv 00379
cv 00380
cv 00381
cv 00387
cv 00389
cv 00397
cv 00401
cv 00423
cv 00443
cv 00455
cv 00468
cv 00469
cv 00470
cv 00476
cv 00481
cv 00483
cv 00485
cv 00486
cv 00489
cv 00490
cv 00491
cv 00493

Case Style
Wilma Johnson v. Ethicon, et al.
Amy and Brent Holland v. Ethicon, et al.
Carrie Smith v. Ethicon, et al.
Mary F. Cone v. Ethicon, et al.
Doris Chappell Jackson v. Ethicon, et al.
Cathy and John Warlick v. Ethicon, et al.
Joy and Kevin Essman v. Ethicon, et al.
Susan Thaman v. Ethicon, et al.
Quillan R. and Thomas W. Garnett v. Ethicon, et al.
Linda B. Ryan v. Ethicon, et al.
Sandra Wolfe v. Ethicon, et al.
Kathleen Wolfe v. Ethicon, et al.
Helen M. Brown and Robert E. Ruttkay v. Ethicon, et al.
Rose and Jesus Gomez v. Ethicon, et al.
Deborah and Felipe Lozano v. Ethicon, et al.
Kathy Barton v. Ethicon, et al.
Charlotte Hargrove v. Ethicon, et al.
Amanda and Raymond Deleon v. Ethicon, et al.
Sharon and Michael Boggs v. Ethicon, et al.
Dawna Hankins v. Ethicon, et al.
Charlene Logan Taylor v. Ethicon, et al.
Tina and Kenneth Morrow v. Ethicon, et al.
Teri Key and Johnny Shively v. Ethicon, et al.
Terrie S. and Ralph R. Gregory v. Ethicon, et al.
Susan C. and Leonard Hayes v. Ethicon, et al.
Maru LuEllen and Thomas Lawrence Kilday v. Ethicon, et al.
Janice Renee Swaney v. Ethicon, et al.
Deborah A. Smith v. Ethicon, et al.
Carol Jean Dimock v. Ethicon, et al.
Pamela Free v. Ethicon, et al.
Holy and Jason Jones v. Ethicon, et al.
Pamela Gray Wheeler and Stan Wheeler v. Ethicon, et al.
Amelia R. and Ernest B. Gonzales v. Ethicon, et al.
Patricia Tyler v. Ethicon, et al.
Mary Jane and Daniel Olson v. Ethicon, et al.
Harriet Beach v. Ethicon, et al.
Miranda Patterson v. Ethicon, et al.
Carey Beth and David Cole v. Ethicon, et al.
Danni Laffoon v. Ethicon, et al.
Karen and Joel Forester v. Ethicon, et al.
Melissa and Charles Clayton v. Ethicon, et al.
Shirley and William Freeman v. Ethicon, et al.
Gwendolyn T. Young v. Ethicon, et al.
Nancy and Daniel Hooper v. Ethicon, et al.
Page 1

2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12

Case No.
cv 00494
cv 00495
cv 00496
cv 00497
cv 00498
cv 00499
cv 00500
cv 00501
cv 00504
cv 00505
cv 00506
cv 00510
cv 00511
cv 00516
cv 00517
cv 00539
cv 00540
cv 00547
cv 00548
cv 00554
cv 00555
cv 00567
cv 00571
cv 00591
cv 00594
cv 00595
cv 00601
cv 00609
cv 00651
cv 00652
cv 00654
cv 00657
cv 00663
cv 00666
cv 00669
cv 00679
cv 00683
cv 00736
cv 00737
cv 00738
cv 00746
cv 00747
cv 00748
cv 00749

Case Style
Penelope Ann Link and Dan Richard Saurino v. Ethicon, et al.
Andrea Carol and Mark Thomas Chandlee v. Ethicon, et al.
Sonya M. and James R. Moreland v. Ethicon, et al.
Dina Sanders Bennett v. Ethicon, et al.
Myndal Johnson v. Ethicon, et al.
Kimberly Thomas v. Ethicon, et al.
Krystal and Gregory Teasley v. Ethicon, et al.
Jennifer and David Sikes v. Ethicon, et al.
Donna T. and James W. Pilgreen v. Ethicon, et al.
Mary and Kenneth Thurston v. Ethicon, et al.
Martha and Stuart Newman v. Ethicon, et al.
Charlene Miracle v. Ethicon, et al.
Nancy Williams v. Ethicon, et al.
Patricia Conti v. Ethicon, et al.
Joann Lehman v. Ethicon, et al.
Ann Louise Ruppel and Robert Dean Fuller v. Ethicon, et al.
Nancy and Kenneth Feidler v. Ethicon, et al.
Brenda and James Riddell v. Ethicon, et al.
Rhoda Schachtman v. Ethicon, et al.
Sharon and Gardner Carpenter v. Ethicon, et al.
Carolyn Sue Doyle v. Ethicon, et al.
Noemi and Cesar Padilla v. Ethicon, et al.
Mary Catherine Wise v. Ethicon, et al.
Beverly Kivel v. Ethicon, et al.
Frances Ann and Herman Cortez v. Ethicon, et al.
Mary and Thomas Hendrix v. Ethicon, et al.
Deanna Jean and Bennie G. Thomas v. Ethicon, et al.
Patricia O. Powell v. Ethicon, et al.
Robin Bridges v. Ethicon, et al.
Maria C. and Mark A. Stone v. Ethicon, et al.
Stacy and Kevin Shultis v. Ethicon, et al.
Judy G. Williams v. Ethicon, et al.
Ana Ruebel v. Ethicon, et al.
Donna and Leon Loustaunau v. Ethicon, et al.
Teresa and Ricky J. Stout v. Ethicon, et al.
Lisa and Henry Stevens v. Ethicon, et al.
Louise Grabowski v. Ethicon, et al.
Karen and Thomas Daniell v. Ethicon, et al.
Beth and Stuart Harter v. Ethicon, et al.
Sheri and Gary Scholl v. Ethicon, et al.
Margaret Kirkpatrick v. Ethicon, et al.
Karyn E. and Douglas E. Drake v. Ethicon, et al.
Myra abd Richard Byrd v. Ethicon, et al.
Jennifer D. and Willem C.J. Van Rensburg v. Ethicon, et al.
Page 2

2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12

Case No.
cv 00751
cv 00755
cv 00756
cv 00757
cv 00759
cv 00760
cv 00761
cv 00762
cv 00765
cv 00766
cv 00767
cv 00768
cv 00769
cv 00772
cv 00773
cv 00779
cv 00783
cv 00784
cv 00786
cv 00787
cv 00799
cv 00800
cv 00806
cv 00807
cv 00811
cv 00821
cv 00828
cv 00829
cv 00830
cv 00842
cv 00846
cv 00848
cv 00854
cv 00856
cv 00859
cv 00860
cv 00861
cv 00863
cv 00864
cv 00867
cv 00873
cv 00875
cv 00876
cv 00878

Case Style
Raquel and Ernesto De La Torre v. Ethicon, et al.
Cheryl Lankston v. Ethicon, et al.
Dee and Michael Woolsey v. Ethicon, et al.
Barbara Jean and Keith Bridges v. Ethicon, et al.
Diane and Robert Matott v. Ethicon, et al.
Lois and Gerald Durham v. Ethicon, et al.
Barbara J. and Gary L. Ware v. Ethicon, et al.
Janet D. Jones v. Ethicon, et al.
Rachel and Dwan Taylor v. Ethicon, et al.
Kimberly Garnto v. Ethicon, et al.
Rebecca and Charles Oehring v. Ethicon, et al.
Sandra and Christian LaBadie v. Ethicon, et al.
Kimberly T. Burnham v. Ethicon, et al.
Harmony Minniefield v. Ethicon, et al.
Tina and Keith Patterson v. Ethicon, et al.
Dee and Timothy McBrayer v. Ethicon, et al.
Wendy Hagans v. Ethicon, et al.
Schultz et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Swint et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Joplin v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Quijano v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Morrison et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Hill et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Sweeney et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Zoltowski et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Barr et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Nix et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Georgilakis et al v. Ethicon, Inc et at
Parrilla v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Stubblefield v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Raines et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Fisk v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Ballard et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Massicot v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Olmstead v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Pelton v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Smith et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Gunter et al v. Ethicon, Inc
Nolan v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Rock v. Ethicon et al
Walker et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Holzerland et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Hoy et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Fox et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al
Page 3

2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12

Case No.
cv 00880
cv 00883
cv 00886
cv 00887
cv 00888
cv 00899
cv 00921
cv 00923
cv 00931
cv 00938
cv 00939
cv 00956
cv 00957
cv 00958
cv 00960
cv 00961
cv 00967
cv 00995
cv 00997
cv 01004
cv 01011
cv 01013
cv 01018
cv 01021
cv 01023
cv 01052
cv 01053
cv 01071
cv 01081
cv 01088
cv 01090
cv 01119
cv 01121
cv 01124
cv 01145
cv 01146
cv 01148
cv 01149
cv 01150
cv 01151
cv 01171
cv 01198
cv 01199
cv 01202

Case Style
Massey et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Wroble et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Umberger et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Kaiser et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Bruhn et al v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Barker et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Wilson v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Atemnkeng et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Collins v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Kriz et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Reyes et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Justus v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Funderburke v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
White et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Amsden et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Greene v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Shepherd v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Blake et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Springer et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Frye v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Hankins et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Lee et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Gwinn et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Ruiz v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Burkhart v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Babcock v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Baugher v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Schnering et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Dixon v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Wheeler et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Wright v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Rhynehart v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Guinn v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Bellito Stanford et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Constance Daino v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Monica Freitas v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Denise Sacchetti v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Cindy Smith v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Roberta Warmack v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Laura Waynick v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Patti Ann Phelps v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Stacy Pangborn v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Lisa Thompson v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Diane Kropf v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Page 4

2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12
2:12

Case No.
cv 01203
cv 01206
cv 01215
cv 01216
cv 01225
cv 01262
cv 01267
cv 01273
cv 01274
cv 01275
cv 01277
cv 01278
cv 01279
cv 01283
cv 01284
cv 01285
cv 01286
cv 01293
cv 01294
cv 01299
cv 01304
cv 01305
cv 01311
cv 01318

Case Style
Joan Adams v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Jeanie Holmes v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Karen Bollinger v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Christine Wiltgen v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Ida Deanne Evans v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Saundra Landes v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Angela Coleman v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Rebekah Barlett v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Janice Colonna v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Long v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Duncan v. Ethicon, Inc et al
Nix v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Bertoni et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Cyrus v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Floyd v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Simpson et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Wilson v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Costello v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Herrera Nevarez v. Ethicon, Inc
Destefano Rasten et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Irwin et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Lager v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Ridgley et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Banks v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al

Page 5