Ridgley et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Motions in Limine) Defendants' 82 OMNIBUS MOTION by Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson in Limine is GRANTED in part as to Motion in Limine No. 2, the remainder of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice; and Def endants' 84 MOTION by Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's Allegations of Spoliation is GRANTED, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/25/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
MELISSA RIDGLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-1311
ETHICON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Motions in Limine)
Pending before the court are the defendants’ Motions in Limine [ECF Nos. 82,
84].
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 60,000 cases currently pending, approximately 28,000 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). The court seeks the assistance of the
parties in completing these tasks by asking the parties to focus on discrete, important,
or more relevant matters. Here, the court expected the parties to focus their motions
in limine on “highly prejudicial statements in opening or closing statements or
questions at trial that, once heard by the jury, cannot be easily cured by an instruction
to disregard.” Pretrial Order No. 234, at 5 [2:12-md-2327 ECF No. 2314] (“PTO 234”).
The court further cautioned that it would “not provide advisory opinions on the
admissibility of evidence a party may offer at trial and [would] summarily deny those
motions as premature.” Id.
a. The Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the January 2012 “522” Letters and
Subsequent FDA Actions (Motion in Limine No. 2) [ECF No. 82]
The defendants ask the court to exclude evidence of the January 2012 “522”
letters and subsequent FDA actions that would have applied to Ethicon devices if
they had not been discontinued, arguing it is prejudicial under Federal Rules of
Evidence 403 and would require presentation of evidence on a collateral issue. Mem.
Supp. Mot. Lim. 2–5 [ECF No. 83]. The plaintiffs did not respond to this Motion.
Indeed, the court has excluded this same evidence on prior occasions. See, e.g., Bellew
v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-22473, 2014 WL 6680356, at *1 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 25,
2014). The court GRANTS in part the defendants’ Motion in Limine [ECF No. 82] on
this point; the remainder of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
2
b. The Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Allegations of
Spoliation [ECF No. 84]
The defendants have separately filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence
related to spoliation. [ECF No. 84]. The plaintiffs have repeatedly alleged that the
defendants lost or destroyed documents relevant to this multidistrict litigation. On
February 4, 2014, Magistrate Judge Eifert held that the defendants’ actions were
negligent, not willful or deliberate, and denied the plaintiffs’ motions for severe
sanctions, such as default judgment, striking of defenses, or offering an adverse
instruction in every case. Pretrial Order No. 100, Feb. 4, 2014 [2:12-md-2327 ECF
No. 1069] (“PTO 100”). However, Judge Eifert recommended that I allow the plaintiffs
“the opportunity to introduce evidence regarding [the defendants’] loss of relevant
documents on a case-by-case basis, and, when appropriate, to tender an adverse
inference instruction.” Id. at 42–43. The plaintiffs have since asked Judge Eifert to
reconsider PTO 100, claiming that they have discovered new evidence that
establishes that the defendants’ duty to preserve evidence began earlier than
previously thought. See Pls.’ Request for Clarification and Reconsideration [2:12-md2327 ECF No. 1099].
While a motion for reconsideration is pending before Judge Eifert, the parties
have indicated that they do not desire a ruling on the motion at this time. If and until
Judge Eifert rules on the motion to reconsider, her original ruling remains in force
and effect. Moreover, the plaintiffs did not respond to this Motion and thus have
offered no evidence or argument that evidence of spoliation will be relevant in this
3
case. Therefore, the defendants’ Motion in Limine [ECF No. 84] on the issue of
spoliation is GRANTED.
c. Conclusion
The defendants’ Motion in Limine [ECF No. 82] is GRANTED in part as to
Motion in Limine No. 2; the remainder of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
The defendants’ Motion to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff’s Allegations of Spoliation
[ECF No. 84] is GRANTED.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
4
January 25, 2017
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?