Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 263

ORDER on Deposition Designations as to Krishna Kandarpa. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/4/2021. (rks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATALIE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
19-cv-760-wmc
C.R. BARD INC. and
BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC.,
Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ request for ruling on objections to certain deposition
designations as to Krishna Kandarpa.
DEPONENT
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

PL AFFIRM

DEF OBJECTIONS PL RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

Defendants object
to the playing of Dr.
Kandarpa's
deposition under
Rules 401, 402 and
403. Also, Plaintiff
lists Dr. Kandarpa
as a non-retained
expert on her
witness list, but he
was not identified as
such in her expert
disclosures. Dr.
Kandarpa had no
involvement with
the filter at issue
and no involvement
with any Bard filters
except to ask a
monitor for a clincal
study performed on

OVERRULED

1

the Bard G2 filter
over 5 years before
the Meridian filter
was developed at
Bard. As such his
testimony has no
relevance and serves
no purpose except
to prejudice the
jury.
Bard objects to
Plaintiff’s references
to “Admitted in the
Peterson case” as a
basis for allowing a
designation to
played, or overruling
an objection, and
submits that the
testimony should be
consider based on
the facts and
applicable law and
rulings in this case.
The Peterson case
involved a different
filter, different
claims, and was
decided under
different state law.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

10:04-10:15

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

24:01-26:24

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

27:04-29:14

Admitted in
Peterson

2

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

32:12-32:15

Leading

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

32:21-33:10

Leading

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

33:12-33:16

Answer to leading
question

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

34:11-34:16

Rule 701 – expert
opinions. This
witness was not
disclosed as an
expert witness.

Admitted in
OVERRULED
Peterson.
he is the medical
monitor and this is
basic background
on what he did. It
is relevant
information. The
study in question is
the Everest study
cited by Bard in the
IFU for the
Meridian filter. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].
The witness is
testifying based
upon his experience
as the medical
montor for the
Everest study.The
scope and extent of
this testimony

3

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

35:06-35:13

Rule 701 – expert
opinions. This
witness was not
disclosed as an
expert witness.

Admitted in
OVERRULED
Peterson.
he is the medical
monitor and this is
basic background
on what he did. It
is relevant
information. The
study in question is
the Everest study
cited by Bard in the
IFU for the
Meridian filter. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].
The witness is
testifying based
upon his experience
as the medical
montor for the
Everest study.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

52:05-53:02

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

56:13-56:17

leading

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

56:19-57:01

Answer to a leading
question

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

57:06-57:22

Admitted in
Peterson

Admitted in
Peterson

4

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

58:07-59:01

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

63:01-63:04

Rules 401, 402 &
403 - Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony purports
to address Bard's
state of mind. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to 63:14 and 63:6-10;
MDL court
sustained objection
in 9.12.18 order
[Dkt. No. 12590])

Admitted in
Peterson
This is relevant as
Bard sponsored a
study of its G2
(essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and G2X)
and had control
over the parameters
of the study. It did
not look at safety
or efficacy, not did
it seek to confirm
or refute the
significant
problems with the
G2 filter designs.
Bard later relied
upon the study in
determining the
nature and extent
of its product
warnings. Bard
cites to this study
as clinical evidence
supporting the use
of the Meridian
filter in its IFU.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

63:06-63:24

Rules 401, 402 &
403 - Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony purports
to address Bard's
state of mind. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to 63:14 and 63:6-10;

Admitted in
Peterson
This is relevant as
Bard sponsored a
study of its G2
(essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and G2X)
and had control
over the parameters
of the study. It did

OVERRULED

5

MDL court
sustained objection
in 9.12.18 order
[Dkt. No. 12590])

not lok at safety or
efficacy, not did it
seek to confirm or
refute the
significant
problems with the
G2 filter designs.
Bard later relied
upon the study in
determining the
nature and extent
of its product
warnings. Bard
cites to this study
as clinical evidence
supporting the use
of the Meridian
filter in its IFU.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

67:17-67:21

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

67:24-68:03

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

68:20-69:16

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

71:18-74:03

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
regarding
Sales/Marketing of
the G2 Filter does
not relate to the
claims or causes of
action at issue in the
case; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
73:23 – 74:03 –
Rule 701 – witness
was not disclosed as

6

Admitted in
Peterson
Again, the
Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design

OVERRULED

an expert –
improper opinion
testimony by a nondisclosed expert

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

74:06-74:08

defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.
Bard cites to this
study as clinical
evidence
supporting the use
of the Meridian
filter in its IFU and
used it in its
marketing. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
regarding
Sales/Marketing of
the G2 Filter does
not relate to the
claims or causes of
action at issue in the
case; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 401, 402, and
403 – testimony
concerns what
physician would
have wanted to
know / would expect
a manufacturer to
tell him/her. Rules
601/602 & 612.
Lacks foundation,
witness does not

Admitted in
Peterson
Again, the
Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledg of the
subject matter.
Bard cites to this

7

OVERRULED

have personal
knowledge of
subject matter, calls
for speculation by
the witness. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to
74:10-14; MDL
court sustained
objection in 9.12.18
order [Dkt. No.
12590])
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

76:19-77:08

study as clinical
evidence
supporting the use
of the Meridian
filter in its IFU and
used it in its
marketing. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and
82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Page 78:24 leading.
Page 80:2-4 and 1214 leading.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter. The
question is merely
foundational and is
only used as
necessary to
develop the
witness' testimony
per FRE 611.

8

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

77:12-79:08

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and
82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Page 78:24 leading.
Page 80:2-4 and 1214 leading.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter. The
question is merely
foundational and is
only used as
necessary to
develop the
witness' testimony
per FRE 611.

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

79:21-79:23

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and
82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Page 78:24 leading.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and

RESERVED

9

Page 80:2-4 and 1214 leading.

defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledg of the
subject matter. The
question is merely
foundational and is
only used as
necessary to
develop the
witness' testimony
per FRE 611.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

80:02-80:21

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and
82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Page 78:24 leading.
Page 80:2-4 and 1214 leading.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledg of the
subject matter.

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

81:07-81:19

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's

RESERVED

10

82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Rules 106, 403 -Plaintiffs’ counsel /
questioner used
improper/incomplet
e exhibit. (as to
81:24-82:24)

knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

81:21-81:24

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. (as
to 77:22-78:6 and
82:22-24; witness is
being ask to lay
foundation for
document not
created by him).
Rules 106, 403 -Plaintiffs’ counsel /
questioner used
improper/incomplet
e exhibit.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identical in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

91:17-92:13

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identical in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and

RESERVED

11

reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

108:10108:12

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

109:04109:05

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

109:15109:16

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

119:10119:15

Rule 701 – calls for
expert testimony by
a lay witness. This
witness was not
disclosed as an
expert

Admitted in
Peterson.
The scope and
extent of this
testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

119:17119:21

Rule 701 – calls for
expert testimony by
a lay witness. This
witness was not
disclosed as an
expert

Admitted in
Peterson.
The scope and
extent of this
testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

120:12120:17

Admitted in
Peterson

12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

120:21123:04

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct. (as to
question at 123:3-4)

Admitted in
Peterson
question to develop
testimony

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

123:06123:12

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct. (all
questions are
leading)

Admitted in
Peterson
same as above

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

123:14123:20

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct. (all
questions are
leading)

Admitted in
Peterson
same as above

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

123:22124:01

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct. (all
questions are
leading)

Admitted in
Peterson
same as above

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

124:04124:07

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct.

Admitted
inPeterson
same as above

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

124:09124:10

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on direct. (as to
answer at 124:9)

Admitted
inPeterson
question to develop
testimony

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

125:01125:04

No foundation. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identical in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design

OVERRULED

13

defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

125:07125:18

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

125:20126:02

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to
question at 126:1-4;
9 MDL court
sustained objection
in 9.12.18 order
[Dkt. No. 12590])
Rules 401, 402 &
403. Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

126:14126:20

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by

OVERRULED

14

calls for speculation
by the witness. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to
answer at 126:6-15;
MDL court
sustained objection
in 9.12.18 order
[Dkt. No. 12590])
Rules 401, 402 &
403. Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony does not
address filter, injury,
or failure mode at
issue.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

128:15129:15

the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

Rules 401, 402, and
403 – testimony
concerns what
physician would
have wanted to
know / would expect
a manufacturer to
tell him/her. Rules
401, 402 & 403.
Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony does not
address filter, injury,
or failure mode at
issue. Rule 701.
Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. Page
129:11-15 is a
question with no
answer. Counsel is
testifying.

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

15

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

134:05134:09

Leading

Admitted in
Peterson
The question is not
leading

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

134:11135:10

134:11-18 answer to Admitted in
OVERRULED
a leading question
Peterson
and hearsay.
The question
preceeding 134:11135:2-10 –
18 is not leading.
cumulative and
The question at
leading.
135:2-10 in used to
develop the
witnesses testimony
per FRE 611 and is
not needlessly
presenting
cumulative
testimony.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

135:12136:11

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.
(question and
answer at 136:4-11
and 136:13-18 ask
witness to speculate)

16

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identical in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

136:13137:15

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.
(question and
answer at 136:4-11
and 136:13-18 ask
witness to
speculate). Rules
401, 402 & 403.
Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony does not
address filter, injury,
or failure mode at
issue. 136:20- 137:8
cumulative. 137:915 leading

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

137:17137:23

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

138:02

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

138:04138:09

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

140:18140:19

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

201:05201:10

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on re-direct. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion

17

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identicle in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter.

The witness is
stating facts within
his knowledge as
the medical
moniter.

OVERRULED

SUSTAIN

testimony by a lay
witness.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

201:12202:03

Rule 611(c) Leading
question of witness
on re-direct. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

205:20207:13

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

208:02208:24

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

209:03211:07

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

211:09212:18

Rules 106, 403.
Plaintiffs’ counsel /
questioner used
improper/incomplet
e exhibit. (as to
212:19-213:08)

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

221:15221:24

No question
designated

Plaintiff will
withdraw.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

222:03222:03

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

222:05222:08

Admitted in
Peterson

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

222:09223:13

223:07-13 - Leading

18

The witness is
stating facts within
his knowledge as
the medical
moniter.

Admitted in
Peterson

SUSTAIN

OVERRULED

SUSTAIN AS
TO 223:7224:1 ONLY

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

223:15226:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

232:10232:14

DEPONENT

DEF
COUNTER

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

141:08141:13

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. Rule
701. Testimony is
improper opinion
testimony by a lay
witness. (as to
221:15-222:13 and
223:2-13; doctor is
being asked about
internal Bard
document that he
has not seen before
and is outside scope
of his role as
medical monitor).
Rules 401, 402 &
403. Irrelevant and
Unfairly Prejudicial.
Testimony does not
address filter, injury,
or failure mode at
issue.

141:18141:21

Admitted in
Peterson
The Meridian was
nearly identical in
design to the filters
being discussed by
the witness. The
failures of the filter
line and Bard's
knowledge of and
reaction to such
failures of all G2
devices is relevant
to the design
defects and
defective warnings.
The testimony of
the witness
establishes his
knowledge of the
subject matter. The
scope and extent of
this testimony was
disclosed in the
Plainitff's witness
list [ECF No. 107].

Admitted in
Peterson

PL OBJECTIONS

19

DEF RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

142:06142:18

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

143:05143:20

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

144:01144:03

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

144:06144:12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

144:18144:23

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

145:07145:14

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

146:01146:17

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

149:02149:08

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

149:19150:02

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

150:06152:01

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

152:08152:14

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

153:03153:04

FRE 402

OVERRULED

20

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

153:08153:10

FRE 402

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

153:19153:23

FRE 402

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

155:23155:24

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

156:08157:08

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

157:11157:16

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

157:19158:03
ending with
…there's
ambiguity.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

158:08159:01

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

159:04159:11

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

160:04160:12

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

21

Witness is asked
about his own
personal
recollection of the
document. Does
not assume any
facts, and calls for
nothing other than
witness's personal
recollection and
knowledge.

RESERVED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

160:15161:01

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

161:05161:06

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

161:20161:23
ending with
Probably
not.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

162:02

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

162:04162:06
ending with
No, I did
not.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

162:07162:18

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

162:22163:02

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

163:04163:09

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

163:12163:17

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

163:22164:06

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

164:20164:21

22

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

165:05165:07

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

165:16165:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

166:04166:11

assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own
recollection.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

166:13167:18

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own
recollection.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

169:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

169:21169:22

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

170:02170:06

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

170:12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

170:17170:22

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

171:03171:06

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding

OVERRULED

23

his own
recollection.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

171:09

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

171:12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

171:15

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

171:18171:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:01

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:07172:12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:13172:15
starting with
--reported
filter

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:17

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

172:24173:05

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own
recollection.

OVERRULED

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks

OVERRULED

24

witness regarding
his own knowledge.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

173:14173:19

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own knowledge.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

174:09174:14
starting with
Exhibit 13

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own knowledge.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

174:18174:22

Assumes facts not in
evidence;calls for
speculation;FRE
402, 403

Does not call for
speculation.
Question asks
witness regarding
his own knowledge.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

176:14176:19

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

177:18177:20

misstated the
answer of the
witness

no objection noted

SUSTAIN

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

177:23178:01
ending with
report of it.

asked and answered

Plaintiff does not
identify any
previous time this
question was asked
and answered.

SUSTAIN

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

178:07178:19

FRE 402

Plaintiff does not
identify how this
testimony may be
irrelevant to the
issues in this case,
so Bard is left to
guess what Plaintiff
means. Bard notes,
however, that
adverse event
reporting is directly
relevant to

OVERRULED

25

Plaintiff's attempts
to use comparative
rates of
complications,
based on these
adverse event
reports, to establish
that Bard's IVC
filters are
defectively
designed.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

179:18180:06

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

181:06181:07

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

181:09181:14

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

181:18181:20

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

182:17

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

182:22183:09

hearsay;calls for
speculation

Testimony not
offered to prove the
truth of the matter
asserted. There is
no call for
speculation
regarding the
details of this
study.

SUSTAIN

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

183:12183:14

hearsay;calls for
speculation

Testimony not
offered to prove the
truth of the matter
asserted. There is
no call for

SUSTAIN

26

speculation
regarding the
details of this
study.
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

183:16

FRE 602

Answer does not
provide any
information not
from witness'
personal
knowledge.

SUSTAIN

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

186:06186:10

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

187:07187:19
ending with
No, I don’t.

misstated the
answer of the
witness

Plaintiff fails to
explain how this
designation
misstates the
witness' answer. In
fact, it does not.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

187:23188:03
ending with
…if it did.

FRE 402, 403, 602

Bard's
dissemination of
this data to
physicians is
relevant in this
case. Question does
not seek, nor does
answer provide,
any information
not from witness'
personal
knowledge.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

188:08
I don't know

FRE 602, calls for
hearsay

Phrase "I don't
know" neither calls
for hearsay nor
provides any
information or
testimony outside
plaintiff's personal
knowledge.

SUSTAIN

27

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

188:10188:12

fre 602; calls for
hearsay

Question
confirming that
witness does not
have knowledge
does not seek, nor
does answer
confirming lack of
knowledge provide,
any information
outside witness'
own perception.
Nor does this call
for any hearsay.

OVERRULED

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

191:09191:12

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

191:24192:08
ending with
No, I don’t.

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

193:16194:04
ending with
Yeah.

FRE 402, 403

Goes to bias.

RESERVED

DEPONENT

PL
COUNTER
S TO
COUNTER
S

DEF OBJECTIONS PL RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

152:02152:07

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

158:04158:07
completeness

28

COURT
RULING

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

161:23161:24
completeness

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

162:01

Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

186:11186:13

completeness

completeness
Kandarpa,
Krishna
07/19/2018

187:19187:22
completeness

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ request for rulings on objections to
certain designations is GRANTED, and the objections are sustained in part and overruled
in part as provided above.
Entered this 4th day of June, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

29