Bryant v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER Defendant C. R. Bard's 66 Omnibus Motion to Exclude is DENIED; Bard's 68 Omnibus Motion is DENIED; and Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 1/29/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (ras)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL NO. 2187

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Bryant v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-19730

ORDER
Pending before the court are the following motions: (1) Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc.’s
Motion to Exclude or Limit Certain Opinions and Testimony by Plaintiffs’ Treating Physicians
(“Bard’s Motion to Exclude”) [Docket #66]; (2) Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc.’s Omnibus Motion
to Exclude Testimony and Evidence Pursuant to Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence
(“Bard’s Omnibus Motion”) [Docket #68]; and (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or, in the
Alternative, Response in Opposition to Bard’s “Omnibus Motion to Exclude Testimony and
Evidence Pursuant to Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence” (Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike”)
[Docket #71].
These two “omnibus” motions [Dockets ##s 66 and 68] seek to exclude broad categories
of expert testimony. However, Rule 702, by its plain terms, contemplates Daubert challenges
directed at the opinions of specific experts, not the opinions of a collection of experts. While
these experts may have come to similar conclusions, it is not the conclusions that the court must
assess, but the reliability of the methods and procedures underpinning those conclusions.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993) (“The focus, of course, must be
solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”). Two experts

may come to a similar conclusion, but one or both experts’ methodology in reaching that
conclusion may be unreliable. Rule 702 directs the court to determine whether an expert is
qualified, whether his or her opinions are the product of reliable methodology, and whether the
opinions will be helpful to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. I can only conduct the required
Daubert analysis on an individualized basis.
For example, Bard’s Omnibus Motion makes no mention of any specific expert in this
case or his/her opinions. Instead, Bard merely recites the law governing expert testimony and a
history of this court’s prior Daubert rulings. Clearly, at this point in the MDLs, where there are
wave cases from multiple jurisdictions, involving a variety of products, and requiring testimony
from many different treating physicians, such a blanket exclusion of opinions and testimony
would be inappropriate.
Accordingly, Bard’s Omnibus Motion to Exclude [Docket #66] is DENIED; Bard’s
Omnibus Motion [Docket #68] is DENIED; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike [Docket #71] is
DENIED as moot.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER: January 29, 2015

2