Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 265

ORDER on Deposition Designations as to Robert Carr. 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 Robert Carr.
April 17, 2013, Deposition:
DEPONENT

PL AFFIRM

DEF OBJECTIONS

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

1

PL RESPONSE
TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

decided under
different state law.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

5:08-5:19

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff will only
provide
testimony as to
Mr. Carr’s
background and
work history one
time.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

9:01-9:05

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff has
reduced the
designation to
09:01-09:05 and
10:13-10:24

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

10:13-10:24

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

11:20-11:22

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff will only

OVERRULED

2

previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

provide
testimony as to
Mr. Carr’s
background and
work history one
time.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

12:04-12:07

This testimony is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr and several
other of Bard's
employees and
former employees.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

12:18-12:22

Rules 401, 402 and
403-As is indicated
below much of the
testimony
designated below
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
deposition. Plainitff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

3

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

13:17-13:24

Objection. By
removing 13:15-16,
without notice this
testimony is out of
context. Must keep
13:15-16 to denote
the scope of the
witness' testimony.
Moreover, to the
extent Mr. Carr's
background and
work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

Admitted in the
OVERRULED
Peterson Case
Plaintiff will only
provide
testimony as to
Mr. Carr’s
background and
work history one
time.
FRCP 32 (6) and
FRE 106 only
require the
inclusion of
matters that “in
fairness should be
considered with
the part
introduced.” This
designation
involves a new
line of question
and separate
issue from the
testimony offered
therefore optional
completeness is
not required. The
Plaintiff should
be permitted to
present the
testimony
requested and
that follows with
interruption by
this testimony
offered by
defenses. Defense
can play this
testimony in
cross.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

13:25-14:10

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff will only
provide
testimony as to
Mr. Carr’s

4

OVERRULED

cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

background and
work history one
time.

To the extent Mr.
Carr's background
and work history are
previously
designated, this is
duplicative and
cumulative of
testimony
designated in the
four other
depositions of Mr.
Carr.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff will only
provide
testimony as to
Mr. Carr’s
background and
work history one
time.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

14:11-14:14

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

91:16-91:24

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

92:05-92:17

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

93:01-93:07

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

93:08-94:03

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

94:16-95:02

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

95:22-96:06

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

5

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

97:19-97:22

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

6

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the

OVERRULED

design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

97:23-98:08

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

7

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The

OVERRULED

failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

98:11-98:12

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

8

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Plaintiff has
reduced this
designation to
98:11-98:12.
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform

OVERRULED

filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications

9

such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

105:05105:13

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

10

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the

OVERRULED

design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an

11

officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

106:18107:07

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that

12

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

13

Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all

times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks an
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

107:08108:12

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that

14

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Moreover, counsel is
testifying -- simply
reading the
document and
asking the witness if
counsel read it
correctly.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

108:13108:21

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

15

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.

16

The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

108:22108:25

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel

17

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.

18

Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all

times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:01109:01

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel

19

Testimony
admitted at
Bard's request in
Peterson

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:05109:09

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks

20

Testimony
admitted at
Bard's request in
Peterson

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:16109:18

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge

21

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the
design of the
filter whether a
particular failure

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.

22

mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is

withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:21110:01

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel

23

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

110:03110:03

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
This testimony
involves alleged
issues with the G2
and G2X filters, not
the filter at issue.
Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony also
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks

24

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose to
market the
Meridian filter
using the 510(k)
process which
relied upon the
Recovery filter as
the predicate. All
G2 filter platform
filters, including
the Meridian
trace their design
history to the
Recovery filter
and the defects in
the Meridian
design only can
be understood
only in the
context of the
entire filter-line
development.
Judge Campbell
agreed with this
position in Jones
v. Bard. [MDL
Order No.
10819]. The
failure modes are
relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness.

25

design of the
filter whether a
particular failure
mode has
occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt,
and fracture. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
design history its
IVC filters from
the Recovery
filter to the
Meridian is
relevant to the
negligence claims
as is its
knowledge of
how
complications
such as caudal
migration can
lead to fracture.
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an

officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

116:04116:06

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

116:07116:13

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

157:04157:11

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

26

Admitted in the
Peterson case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

157:15157:22

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
exceeds the scope of
the notice of the
deposition. Plaintiff
should not be able
to imply that Mr.
Carr was speaking
on behalf of the
company when he
was responding to
questions in his
personal capacity
because counsel
asked questions that
exceeded the scope
of the notice of the
30(b)(6) deposition.

27

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr, its former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management, to
respond to the
30(b)(6) notice
not the Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The testimony is
withn the scope
of the 30(b)(6)
motion which
included "the
risks and
complications
associated with"
the Bard filters.

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

159:21160:01

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

28

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

160:04160:11

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

29

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01-

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

160:15160:17

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

30

Plaintiff has
reduced the
designation to
160:15 -160:17
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 300(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

161:08161:10

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative

31

Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

161:13161:14

times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates

32

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

161:16

to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the

Admitted in the
Peterson Case

33

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,

depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:11162:15

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

34

OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01-

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:18

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

35

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:19162:23

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

36

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:24

Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.

37

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

163:20163:21

to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The Hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical
community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.
Testimony
admitted at
Bard's request in
Peterson

38

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

163:22164:08

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

165:14165:17

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Rules 401, 402 and
403 - this line of
questions exceeds
the scope of the
depositon notice
(See 160:2-3). Rules
401, 402 and 403.
Improper
hypothetical and
assumes facts that
are not in evidence.
Testimony does not
involve filter at issue
and/or failure modes
at issue; Irrelevant
and any probative
value outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

39

Admitted in the
Peterson Case
Bard chose Mr.
Carr to respond
to the 30(b)(6)
notice not the
Plaintiff,
therefore he is
testifying for the
company. The
testimony relates
to the risks and
benefits
presented by
Bard’s IVC filters
and is within the
scope of the
notice. At all
times relevant to
the deposition
and subject
matter of the
testimony Mr.
Carr was an
officer and
manager at Bard.
The hypothetical
is based upon an
event that
actually occurred
and was reported
to Bard. [163:01163:17]. The
Bard's conduct
with regard to the
communication
of the known
performance
failures of its
filters and the
reported rate of
such failures, or
lack thereof, to
the medical

RESERVED
AS TO
SCOPE,
OTHERWISE
OVERRULED

community is
clearly relevant to
the failure to
warn and
negligence claims.
The testimony is
relevant and is
not unfairly
prejudicial.

DEPONENT

DEF
COUNTER

PL OBJECTIONS

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

13:25-14:10
Subject to
objection and
for
completeness

FRCP 32 (6) and
FRE 106 only
require the inclusion
of matters that “in
fairness should be
considered with the
part introduced.”
This designation
involves a new line
of question and
separate issue from
the testimony
offered therefore
optional
completeness is not
required. The
Plaintiff should be
permitted to present
the testimony
requested and that
follows with
interruption by this
testimony offered by
defenses. Defense
can play this
testimony in cross.

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

92:18-92:25

40

DEF
RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING
MOOT

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

94:04-94:15

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

95:03-95:21

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

96:07-96:18

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

99:03-99:05

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

99:08-99:17

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

99:25-100:01

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

100:04100:05

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

105:14105:22

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:01

FRCP 32(6) and
FRE 106– Optional
completeness – Page
99:18-99:24
completes the line of
question requested
by the defense and
in fairness should be
considered with the
part introduced.
This is particularly
necessary since
defense resumes the
testimony at 99:25

SUSTAIN,
INCLUDE
99:18-99:24

FRE 403: testimony
is already contained
in Plaintiff's
affirmatives so
results in undue
delay, waste of time
and needless
presentation of
cumulative evidence

MOOT

41

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

109:05109:09
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

157:23158:01

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

158:03158:06

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

160:25161:04
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

FRE 403: testimony
is already contained
in Plaintiff's
affirmatives so
results in undue
delay, waste of time
and needless
presentation of
cumulative evidence

MOOT

161:06161:07

FRE 403: testimony
is already contained
in Plaintiff's

MOOT

Subject to
objection
Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

161:17161:22
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:01162:04
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

162:06162:08
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

163:20163:21

42

subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

affirmatives so
results in undue
delay, waste of time
and needless
presentation of
cumulative evidence

164:15164:18
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

164:20164:21
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

165:01165:13
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

166:02166:07
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

166:19:166:2
1
(ending with
"experienced")
Subject to
objection

Carr, Rob
04/17/2013

166:24167:02
(starting with
"absolutely")

43

Subject to
objection

November 5, 2013, Deposition:
DEPONENT

PL AFFIRM

DEF
OBJECTIONS

PL RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

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.
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

41:11-41:15

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

44:05-44:10

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

87:24-88:03

Admitted in
Peterson

44

COURT
RULING

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

88:05

Counters at 88:712 are necessary
for completeness.

Admitted in
Peterson
FRCP 32(6) AND
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demonstrated why
this testimony, in
the name of fairness,
must be considered
at the same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
Defendants can
include it in their
cross.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

134:10134:20

Rule 803 - counsel
is reading from a
document that is
not in evidence.
See lines 6 and 7
("turn to the next
page")

Admitted in
Peterson
The fact the
document "is not in
evidence" is not a
proper objection.
The document being
discussed is a copy
of is a copy of 21
CFR 882 which
address a medical
device
manufacturer's
obligations
regardingpost
market survellance
and is a proper
subject for
examination of this
witness and relevant
testimony with
regard Bard's
negligence. (128:09-

OVERRULED

45

128:15). The
language in a
regulation is not an
out of court
"statement" as that
term is defined by
FRE 801.
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

134:23

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:01135:02

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:07135:08

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:10135:12

Testimony admitted
at Bard's request in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:14135:14

Testimony admitted
at Bard's request in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:15135:19

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:21135:22

Incomplete
answer. Answer
starts on 135:1014. Answer is out
of text without the
added language

Admitted in
Peterson
FRCP 32(6) and
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have not
demonstrated why
this testimony, in
the name of fairness,
must be considered
at the same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
Admitted in
Peterson

46

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:24136:03

Admitted in
Peterson

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

191:16191:22

Rules 401, 402
and 403. This
relates to the
Recovery filter. It
is confusing and
serves no purpose
other than to
confuse and
prejudice the jury.
If the testimony is
allowed the
counters on 192
are necessary for
completeness.

Admitted in
Peterson

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

193:24194:02

Rules 401, 402
and 403. This
relates to the
Recovery filter. It
is confusing and
serves no purpose
other than to
confuse and
prejudice the jury.
If the testimony is
allowed the
counters on 192
are necessary for
completeness.

Admitted in
Peterson

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

194:05
beginning
with "We…"

Rules 401, 402
and 403. This
relates to the
Recovery filter. It
is confusing and
serves no purpose
other than to
confuse and
prejudice the jury.
If the testimony is
allowed the
counters on 192

Admitted in
Peterson

OVERRULED

47

are necessary for
completeness.

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

265:09265:13

Rules 401, 402
and 403. This
relates to the
Recovery filter. It
is confusing and
serves no purpose
other than to
confuse and
prejudice the jury.
If the testimony is
allowed the
counters on 265266 are necessary
for completeness.

48

Admitted in
Peterson
All G2 filter
platform filters,
including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in
the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence

OVERRULED

claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

265:15265:16

Rules 401, 402
and 403. This
relates to the
Recovery filter. It
is confusing and
serves no purpose
other than to
confuse and
prejudice the jury.
If the testimony is
allowed the
counters on 265266 are necessary
for completeness.

49

Admitted in
Peterson
All G2 filter
platform filters,
including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in
the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard

OVERRULED

to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence
claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony ios
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

268:05268:06

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15.
Rules 401, 402,
403 – Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue
and/or failure
mode at issue;
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

50

Admitted in
SUSTAIN
Peterson
The Federal Rules of
Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
. “What if you had
known “ questions
are acceptable. Id.,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
At all times relevant
to the deposition
and subject matter
of the testimony Mr.

Carr was an officer
and manager at Bard
whiwho should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter. . All
G2 filter platform
filters, including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in
the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence

51

claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

268:08268:09

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

268:10268:15

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15

52

Testimony Admitted
at Bard's request in
Peterson

SUSTAIN

SUSTAIN

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

290:16290:19

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15.
Rules 401, 402,
403 – Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue
and/or failure
mode at issue;
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

53

Admitted in
Peterson
The Federal Rules of
Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
. “What if you had
known “ questions
are acceptable. Id.,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
At all times relevant
to the deposition
and subject matter
of the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at Bard
whiwho should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter. . All
G2 filter platform
filters, including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in

SUSAIN

the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence
claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.

54

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

290:21290:22

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15.
Rules 401, 402,
403 – Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue
and/or failure
mode at issue;
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

55

Admitted in
SUSTAIN
Peterson
The Federal Rules of
Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
. “What if you had
known “ questions
are acceptable. Id.,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
At all times relevant
to the deposition
and subject matter
of the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at Bard
who should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter. . All
G2 filter platform
filters, including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in

the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence
claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.

56

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

292:04292:09

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15.
Rules 401, 402,
403 – Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue
and/or failure
mode at issue;
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

57

The Federal Rules of SUSTAIN
Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
. “What if you had
known “ questions
are acceptable. Id.,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
At all times relevant
to the deposition
and subject matter
of the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at Bard
whiwho should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter. . All
G2 filter platform
filters, including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in
the context of the
entire filter-line

development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence
claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.

58

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

292:11

Rule 602-Witness
is not familiar
with the
document and has
not seen it before.
See, 268:8-15.
Rules 401, 402,
403 – Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue
and/or failure
mode at issue;
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

59

Admitted in
Peterson
The Federal Rules of
Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
. “What if you had
known “ questions
are acceptable. Id.,
459 (2nd Cir. 2013).
At all times relevant
to the deposition
and subject matter
of the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at Bard
who should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter. . All
G2 filter platform
filters, including the
Meridian trace their
design history to the
Recovery filter and
the defects in the
Meridian design
only can be
understood only in

SUSTAIN

the context of the
entire filter-line
development. Judge
Campbell agreed
with this position in
Jones v. Bard. [MDL
Order No. 10819].
The failure modes
are relevant to the
assessment of the
defects in the design
of the filter whether
a particular failure
mode has occurred;
however, Ms.
Johnson has
experienced
perforation,
migration, tilt, and
fracture. The Bard's
conduct with regard
to the design history
and complaint
history of its IVC
filters from the
Recovery filter to the
Meridian is relevant
to the negligence
claims as is its
knowledge of how
complications such
as caudal migration
can lead to fracture.
The testimony is
relevant and is not
unfairly prejudicial.
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

293:04293:14
beginning
with "And
did you…"

This violates the
Court's Ruling on
Recovery
Migrataion
deaths. Rule 401,
402, 403 . This
case does not

60

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture, migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery

SUSTAIN

involve the
Recovery Filter,
nor does it involve
any allegation of
migration death.
ECF 204

DEPONENT DEF
COUNTER
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a design
defect. Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to Bard,
and the failure to
warn of the
substantial risk of
fracture, migration
and death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous. The
reference to the
word “death” will be
redacted.

PL
OBJECTIONS

DEF RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

88:07-88:08

FRE 106 only
requires
For
completeness that
Completeness "in fairness ought
to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

61

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

88:10-88:12

FRE 106 only
requires
For
completeness that
Completeness "in fairness ought
to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:10135:12

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

135:14

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a

OVERRULED

FRE 106 only
requires
For
completeness that
Completeness "in fairness ought
to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,

62

must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

192:12192:16

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

192:18192:22

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

193:11193:15

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in

OVERRULED

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered

63

at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

193:17193:20

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

265:18266:03

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
For
"in fairness ought
Completeness to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as

64

Plaintiff's
designation.
Carr, Rob
11/05/2013

268:08268:15
For
Completeness

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought
to be considered
at the same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this
testimony, in the
name of fairness,
must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or document
with which that
witness has no
personal knowledge.

SUSTAINED.
Plaintiff’s
affirmative
testimony on
this point was
struck.

October 29, 2014, Deposition:
DEPONENT
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

PL AFFIRM

DEF
PL RESPONSE
OBJECTIONS
TO OBJECTIONS
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

65

COURT
RULING

decided under
different state law.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

74:24-75:06

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

Rule 602 - witness
is not familiar with
the document.See,
lines 5-9 and 12

75:07-75:09

66

Admitted in
Peterson
The Federal Rules
of Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d.
453, 459 (2nd Cir.
2013). . “What if
you had known “
questions are
acceptable. Id.at
459. Mr. Carr is
Bard's former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management and
should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter.
Testimony
admitted at Bard's
request in Peterson

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

75:12

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

78:15-78:23

Rule 602 - witness
is not familiar with
the document.See,
lines 75: 5-9 and
12.

67

Testimony
admitted at Bard's
request in Peterson
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
The Federal Rules
of Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

79:14-79:16

Rule 602 - witness
is not familiar with
the document.See,
lines 75: 5-9 and
12.

68

foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d.
453, 459 . “What
if you had known “
questions are
acceptable. Id.,
459. Mr. Carr is
Bard's former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management and
should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated

OVERRULED

with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
The Federal Rules
of Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d.
453, 459 (2nd Cir.
2013). . “What if
you had known “
questions are
acceptable. Id.,
459. Mr. Carr is
Bard's former
Director of
Research and
Development and
current VP for
Project
Management and
should be
knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter.

69

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

79:20-80:03

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. If
testimony is
allowed, counters
are necessary for
completeness.

70

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
FRCP 32(6) AND
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought
to be considered at
the same time".
Defendants have
not demonstrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

OVERRULED

Defendants can
include it in their
cross.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

82:13-82:18

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

71

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

82:22-82:23

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:02-83:03

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation

72

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:05-83:06

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

73

death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:08-83:11

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

74

Admitted in
OVERRULED
Peterson
The Federal Rules
of Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d.
453, 459 (2nd Cir.
2013). . “What if
you had known “
questions are
acceptable. Id., 459
(2nd Cir. 2013). At
all times relevant to
the deposition and
subject matter of
the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at
Bard who should
be knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:14-83:18

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so [he]
can't speak directly
to it. (83:14-15)
Obj. to designation
of an answer with
no question
designated.

75

Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian

OVERRULED

unreasonably
dangerous.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:21

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

83:23-83:24

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &

76

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:02

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

77

relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated

OVERRULED

with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:04-84:08

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:11

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &

78

Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:13-84:14

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

79

relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated

OVERRULED

with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:17

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:19-84:20

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks

80

Admitted in
Peterson
racture, migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

84:22-85:01

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.
Rules 601/602 &
612. Lacks
foundation, witness
does not have
personal knowledge
of subject matter,
calls for speculation
by the witness. see
85:20-85:21. The
witness states that
he does not know
the genesis of this
document, so he
cannot speak
directly to it.

81

the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
The Federal Rules
of Evidence do not
prohibit a party
from questioning
witnesses about
admissible
documents the
witness does not
recall having seen
before. “Personal
knowledge of a fact
‘is not an absolute’
to Rule 602's
foundational
requirement . . . .”,
United States v.
Cuti, 702 F.3d.
453, 459 (2nd Cir.
2013). . “What if
you had known “
questions are
acceptable. Id.,
459. At all times
relevant to the
deposition and

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

85:04
132:11132:17

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value

82

subject matter of
the testimony Mr.
Carr was an officer
and manager at
Bard who should
be knowledgeable
regarding the
document and its
subject matter.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous.
Admitted in
Peterson
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use

OVERRULED

outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

134:07134:18

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

83

of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous. The
testimony is not
unfairly prejudicial.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the

OVERRULED

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

161:21162:02

Rules 401, 402,
403. Testimony
does not involve
filter at issue and/or
failure modes at
issue; Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

84

failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous. The
testimony is not
unfairly prejudicial.
Admitted in
Peterson
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are risks
involved in the use
of the Recovery
and Meridian
filters and are
relevant to whether
the there is a
design defect.
Fracture,
migration,
perforation and
death are also
dangers of the
Meridian filter that
were known to
Bard, and the
failure to warn of
the substantial risk
of fracture,
migration and
death associated
with the Meridian
rendered the
Meridian
unreasonably
dangerous. The
testimony is not
unfairly prejudicial.

OVERRULED

DEPONENT
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

DEF
COUNTER
32:10-32:19
For
Completenes
s

PL OBJECTIONS
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2015

60:08-60:14

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

75:07-75:09

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as

For
Completenes
s

85

DEF RESPONSE
TO OBJECTIONS
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with

COURT
RULING
SUSTAIN

SUSTAIN

OVERRULED

Plaintiff's
designation.
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

75:12
For
Completenes
s

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

80:04-80:06
For
Completenes
s

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

80:10-80:13
For
Completenes
s

which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
86

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

134:19135:03
For
Completenes
s

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

135:08135:12
For
Completenes
s

Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

164:13164:14
For
Completenes
s
Subject to
Objection

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be

87

document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

SUSTAIN

considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.
Carr, Rob
10/29/2014

166:20166:24
For
Completenes
s

FRE 106 only
requires
completeness that
"in fairness ought to
be considered at the
same time".
Defendants have
not demostrated
why this testimony,
in the name of
fairness, must be
considered at the
same time as
Plaintiff's
designation.

subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.
This testimony is
necessary to place
Plaintiff's selective
designation of lines
of questioning in
proper context
and/or demonstrate
the Plaintiff is
attempting to elicit
testimony from a
witness about a
subject or
document with
which that witness
has no personal
knowledge.

SUSTAIN

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

88