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
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?