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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?