Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Filing 68

ORDER Defendant Bard's 62 Motion to Exclude and Bard's 65 Omnibus Motion 65 are DENIED. 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:
Garcia v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-28067

ORDER
Pending before the court are the following motions: 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 #62]; and, 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 #65].
These two “omnibus” motions 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 Motion to Exclude [Docket #62]; and, Bard’s Omnibus Motion
[Docket #65] are DENIED.
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