Stark v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 105

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 2) denying 96 MOTION by Catherine Stark in Limine No. 2, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 5/25/2016. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (ts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CATHERINE STARK,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-21637

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2)
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 [ECF No. 96].
The Motion is an amalgamation of twelve motions in limine.
This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to the court by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) concerning the use of transvaginal surgical
mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”). In
the seven MDLs, there are more than 75,000 cases currently pending, approximately
19,000 of which are in the Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”) MDL, MDL No.
2326.
Before motions in limine were filed, the court informed the parties of its
expectations with respect to motions in limine:
The court expects the parties to file motions in limine only
for the purpose of precluding 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. The court will not provide
advisory opinions on the admissibility of evidence a party
may offer at trial and will summarily deny those motions
as premature.
Pretrial Order No. 142, at 1.
The court will enforce the Federal Rules of Evidence at trial. All of the
plaintiff’s mostly unsupported and premature motions are DENIED.
The plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 2 [ECF No. 96] is DENIED.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

May 25, 2016