Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 268

ORDER on Deposition Designations as to Janet Hudnall. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/4/2021. (nks) (Entered: 06/04/2021)

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 Janet Hudnall.
DEPONENT PL
AFFIRM
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

DEF OBJECTIONS

PL RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

Bard objects to the
playing of this deposition
under Rules 401, 402
and 403. Ms. Hudnall is
a former marketing
manager who left Bard in
2008, before the
development of the
Meridian filter.
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,

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 filterline development.
Testimony regarding the
Recovery, G2 and Eclipse
filters' complications,
testing, warnings and design
are relevant and are not
unfairly prejudicial. Judge
Campbell agreed with this
position in Jones v. Bard.

1

COURT
RULING
OVERRULED

different claims, and was
decided under different
state law.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

5:20-5:22

[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, Mrs.
John has experienced tilt,
migration, perforation, and
fracture of her filter with
pieces of the device
embolizing to her heart.
She is still at risk for death
or serious injury in the
future.
Admitted in Peterson

21:0221:07

Admitted in Peterson

21:1221:14

Admitted in Peterson

30:2431:18

Admitted in Peterson

31:2532:06

Admitted in Peterson

53:1253:20
beginning
with "And
as…"
54:2055:08

Admitted in Peterson

56:0256:08

Admitted in Peterson

Admitted in Peterson

2

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

56:1556:23

Admitted in Peterson

57:0857:12

Admitted in Peterson

57:1457:16

Admitted in Peterson

91:0691:08
beginning
with
"Exhibit
20…"

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. This
case does not involve the
Recovery Filter.

3

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is

OVERRULED

relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

92:2493:10

Rules 401, 402 & 403Irrelevant and Unfairly
Prejudicial. Testimony
improperly suggests that
Bard had a financial
motive for actions when
no such evidence exists.
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. This
case does not involve the
Recovery Filter.

4

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

99:01100:05

Rules 401, 402 & 403Irrelevant and Unfairly
Prejudicial. Testimony
improperly suggests that
Bard had a financial
motive for actions when
no such evidence exists.
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. This
case does not involve the
Recovery Filter. If
testimony is added,
counters at page 100 are
necessary for
completeness and will
not make sense out of
contect.

5

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.
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. The
testimony concerns a new
line of questioning.
Defendants can include it
in their cross.
Admitted in Peterson

163:07163:21
166:06166:11

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.

6

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03

OVERRULED

Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

168:18169:02

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. This
testimony is about a G2
brochure developed years
before the Meridian was
on the market. There is a
separate Meridian
patient brochure, in
which it is recommended
that patients have the
filter retrieved when it is
no longer indicated. This
serves no purpose other
than to mislead and
prejudice the jury as it
was not the information
in use at the time Ms.
Johnson’s filter was
implanted.

7

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

169:18170:18

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. This
testimony is about a G2
brochure developed years
before the Meridian was
on the market. There is a
separate Meridian
patient brochure, in
which it is recommended
that patients have the
filter retrieved when it is
no longer indicated. This
serves no purpose other
than to mislead and
prejudice the jury as it
was not the information
in use at the time Ms.
Johnson’s filter was
implanted.

8

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

170:20170:25

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. This
testimony is about a G2
brochure developed years
before the Meridian was
on the market. There is a
separate Meridian
patient brochure, in
which it is recommended
that patients have the
filter retrieved when it is
no longer indicated. This
serves no purpose other
than to mislead and
prejudice the jury as it
was not the information
in use at the time Ms.
Johnson’s filter was
implanted.

9

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

171:02171:19

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. This
testimony is about a G2
brochure developed years
before the Meridian was
on the market. There is a
separate Meridian
patient brochure, in
which it is recommended
that patients have the
filter retrieved when it is
no longer indicated. This
serves no purpose other
than to mislead and
prejudice the jury as it
was not the information
in use at the time Ms.
Johnson’s filter was
implanted.

10

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED
as to 171:02:03, but
otherwise
SUSTAIN

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

178:09178:19

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

11

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

179:02180:12

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. If
testimony is allowed
counters at 181 are
necessary for
completeness and will
not make sense out of
context.

12

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

185:10186:03

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. If this
testimony is allowed,
counters at 186 are
necessary for
completeness.

13

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

186:18187:02

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. If the
testimony is allowed,
counters at 187 re
necessary fro
completeness.

14

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

SUSTAIN

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

187:15187:18

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

15

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

SUSTAIN

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

188:06188:09

Rules 401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. This all
relates to marketing and
alleged bad acts of the
Recovery filter, nd serves
no purpose except to
confuse and prejudice
the jury. Ms. Hudnall
was not involved in the
marketing of the
Meridian filter. If the
testimony is allowed the
counters on 188-189 are
necessary for
completeness.

16

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

SUSTAIN

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

226:15226:21

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. Rules
601/602 & 612. Witness
does not have personal
knowledge of document.
Witness was shown a
document, was not
familiar with it and
testified that he/she does
not have personal
knowledge about it or
the circumstances. See
204:10-204:12. The
witness has never seen
the document before and
has no personal
knowledge of it.

17

Admitted in Peterson
Admitted in PetersonThe
testimony describes her job
responsibilities at BPV as a
Senior Product Manager a
position which was directly
involved with the G2 filter
the predicate device for the
G2X, both of which are
essentially the same design
as the Meridian and
predicated upon the
Recovery. (2010.11.03
Hudnall - 40:11 - 41:01).
The testimony from the
witness establishes that she
was in contact with a
number departments and
kept advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

227:16227:25

This all realtes to alleged
Recovery bad acts and
serves no purpose other
than to confuse and
prejudice the jury. 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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect. Rules
601/602 & 612. Witness
does not have personal
knowledge of document.

18

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.
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 . “What if you
had known “ questions are
acceptable. Id. at 459.
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her

OVERRULED

Witness was shown a
document, was not
familiar with it and
testified that he/she does
not have personal
knowledge about it or
the circumstances. See
204:10-204:12. The
witness has never seen
the document before and
has no personal
knowledge of it.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

316:09316:17
beginning
with "If
you…"

This testimony relates to
the Recovery filter only.
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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

19

background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.
Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

316:19316:25
beginning
with "Do
you…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

20

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

317:01317:09
beginning
with "Just
looking…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

21

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,

SUSTAIN

as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

317:11317:13
beginning
with
"Looking
at…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

22

Admitted in Peterson
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,

SUSTAIN

as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

318:02318:06
340:03340:08
beginning
with "Do
you…"

Admitted in Peterson

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

23

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for

SUSTAIN

the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

340:11
beginning
with "I
have…"

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

24

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

SUSTAIN

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

342:23343:14
beginning
with "You
telling…"
REDACT "including
death"
from
343:10

This violates the Court’s
ruling on Recovery
migration deaths. The
testimony is about the
recovery filter. 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.

25

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.
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 . “What if you
had known “ questions are
acceptable. Id. at 459.
The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). Testimony
regarding her background
and responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

OVERRULED
with redaction.

The testimony does not
violate the Court's ruling as
it discuss the general risks
related to filters "including
death" not the cephalad
migration death attributed
to the Recovery filter,
howerver the Plaintiff will
redacted the words
"including death" from the
testimony being offered.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

348:19348:23
beginning
with "Why
weren't…"

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. Rules
401, 402 & 403Irrelevant and Unfairly
Prejudicial. Testimony
improperly suggests that
Bard had a financial
motive for actions when
no such evidence exists.

26

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

348:25349:02
beginning
with
"Well…"

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. Rules
401, 402 & 403Irrelevant and Unfairly
Prejudicial. Testimony
improperly suggests that
Bard had a financial
motive for actions when
no such evidence exists.

27

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

349:04349:19

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. Rules
401, 402 & 403Irrelevant and Unfairly
Prejudicial. Testimony
improperly suggests that
Bard had a financial
motive for actions when
no such evidence exists.

28

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

358:05358:15
beginning
with "You
were…"

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.

29

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

359:07359:13
beginning
with
"Okay."

This violates the Court’s
ruling on Recovery
migration deaths. 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. This
case does not involve a
fatal migration or a
Recovery Filter. This
testimony is overly
prejudicial and has no
bearing on the facts of
this case. The Court has
ruled this testimony is
not substantially similar
to the facts in this case
and, therefore, should be
excluded. (See ECF No.
204, p. 3-5.)

30

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter. The
testimony is relevant to the
design defect, neglience and
failure to warn claims and is
not unfairly prejudicial.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

359:16359:18
beginning
with "Isn't
that…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

31

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge

OVERRULED

and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

359:20360:08
beginning
with "When
it…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

32

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

360:10360:12
beginning
with "Yes."

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

33

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED
as to “Yes.”
SUSTAINED
as to lines 1114.

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

360:14
beginning
with
"Okay."

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

34

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

SUSTAIN

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

361:08361:11
beginning
with
"The…"

This violates the Court’s
ruling on Recovery
migration deaths. 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. This
case does not involve a
fatal migration or a
Recovery Filter. This
testimony is overly
prejudicial and has no
bearing on the facts of
this case. The Court has
ruled this testimony is
not substantially similar
to the facts in this case
and, therefore, should be
excluded. (See ECF No.
204, p. 3-5.)

35

Ms. Hudnall was a Senior
Product Manager a position
which was directly involved
with the G2 filter the
predicate device for the
G2X, both of which are
essentially the same design
as the Meridian and
predicated upon the
Recovery. (2010.11.03
Hudnall - 40:11 - 41:01).
The testimony from the
witness establishes that she
was in contact with a
number departments and
kept advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
The testimony is relevant to
the warnings, negligence
and design defect claims.
The testimony does not
violate the Courts MIL
ruling as the testimony does
not refer to the the
Recovery 's cephalad
migration deaths, in fact
the testimony is about the

SUSTAIN

G2. (358:05-358:15). The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

361:13361:14
beginning
with
"Would
you…"

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. This
case does not involve a
fatal migration or a
Recovery Filter. This
testimony is overly
prejudicial and has no
bearing on the facts of
this case. The Court has
ruled this testimony is
not substantially similar
to the facts in this case
and, therefore, should be
excluded. (See ECF No.
204, p. 3-5.)

36

Ms. Hudnall was a Senior
Product Manager a position
which was directly involved
with the G2 filter the
predicate device for the
G2X, both of which are
essentially the same design
as the Meridian and
predicated upon the
Recovery. (2010.11.03
Hudnall - 40:11 - 41:01).
The testimony from the
witness establishes that she
was in contact with a
number departments and
kept advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
The testimony is relevant to
the warnings, negligence
and design defect claims.
The testimony does not
violate the Courts MIL
ruling as the testimony does
not refer to the the
Recovery 's cephalad
migration deaths, in fact
the testimony is about the
G2. (358:05-358:15). The

SUSTAIN

testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

361:17
beginning
with "They
are…"

This violates the Court’s
ruling on Recovery
migration deaths. 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. This
case does not involve a
fatal migration or a
Recovery Filter. This
testimony is overly
prejudicial and has no
bearing on the facts of
this case. The Court has
ruled this testimony is
not substantially similar
to the facts in this case
and, therefore, should be
excluded. (See ECF No.
204, p. 3-5.)

37

Ms. Hudnall was a Senior
Product Manager a position
which was directly involved
with the G2 filter the
predicate device for the
G2X, both of which are
essentially the same design
as the Meridian and
predicated upon the
Recovery. (2010.11.03
Hudnall - 40:11 - 41:01).
The testimony from the
witness establishes that she
was in contact with a
number departments and
kept advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
The testimony is relevant to
the warnings, negligence
and design defect claims.
The testimony does not
violate the Courts MIL
ruling as the testimony does
not refer to the the
Recovery 's cephalad
migration deaths, in fact
the testimony is about the
G2. (358:05-358:15). The

SUSTAIN

testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

370:16370:22
beginning
with
"Would
it…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

38

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based
thereon. The testimony is

SUSTAIN

relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

370:24370:25
beginning
with "I
can't…"

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
401, 402, 403 –
Testimony relates to
irrelevant and prejudicial
evidence regarding Bard’s
conduct related to the
Recovery Filter.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by
prejudicial effect.

39

The testimony describes her
job responsibilities at BPV
as a Senior Product
Manager a position which
was directly involved with
the G2 filter the predicate
device for the G2X, both of
which are essentially the
same design as the
Meridian and predicated
upon the Recovery.
(2010.11.03 Hudnall 40:11 - 41:01). The
testimony from the witness
establishes that she was in
contact with a number
departments and kept
advised of the adverse
events, compaints and
training occurring with the
Recovery and G2/G2X
filters. She was the
leader/quarterback for the
filter franchise. (2010.11.03
Hudnall -37:11 -37:23).
Testimony regarding her
background and
responsibilities provides
necessary foundation for
the jury to judge her
knowledge and credibility,
as well as Bard's knowledge
and action/inaction based

OVERRULED

thereon. The testimony is
relevant to the warning and
design defect claims. In
addition her testimony
establishes her knowledge
of the subject matter.

PL OBJECTIONS
DEPONENT DEF
COUNTER
Hudnall,
100:06Janet
101:03
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
108:02Janet
108:08
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
108:10Janet
108:11
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
136:13Janet
136:25
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
138:13Janet
139:02
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
142:21Janet
143:15
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
147:11Janet
148:11
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
148:20Janet
148:25
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
181:01Janet
181:23
11/01/2013

DEF RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

40

COURT
RULING

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

begin at I
showed
186:04186:17

187:10187:14
begin at No
one
188:11188:12

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013
Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

349:22350:02

185:25-186:3 is already
contained in Plaintiff's
affirmative designations.
Indeed, this is a designation
meant to counter that, and
other, testimony.

OVERRULED,
except delete
line 12.

FRE 403: Misleading and
confusing: "I'm sorry" is
not a question. This is
not proper testimony.

Plaintiff's counsel asked a
question in follow up to
another question, which
garnered a response from
the witness. "I'm sorry" in
this context is reasonably
read as asking the witness
to restate or clarify her
response, which the witness
did.

SUSTAIN

188:18189:03

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

FRE 403: Misleading and
confusing; optional
completeness: delete
186:4-5 or add 185:25186:3 so the context of
186:4-5 is clear.

193:06193:12
195:10196:06

FRE 401, 402, 403:
Statement of attorney is
followed by a statement
from the witness, but no
question was asked. Not
proper
testimony/evidence. FRE
701 (opinion by lay
witness based on
scientific, technical or
other specialized
knowledge).

41

Plaintiff's counsel's words
can reasonably be read to
be eliciting a statement
from the witness. Indeed,
even a cursory reading of
this deposition indicates
that this tactic is used
throughout. Plaintiff cannot
now complain of her own
counsel's tactics when they
elicit a response she does
not prefer.

STRIKE “But
they” at
196:05 and all
of 196:06.
OVERRULED

Hudnall,
Janet
11/01/2013

350:04350:05

FRE 401, 402, 403:
Statement of attorney is
followed by a statement
from the witness, but no
question was asked. Not
proper
testimony/evidence. FRE
701 (opinion by lay
witness based on
scientific, technical or
other specialized
knowledge).

Plaintiff's counsel's words
can reasonably be read to
be eliciting a statement
from the witness. Indeed,
even a cursory reading of
this deposition indicates
that this tactic is used
throughout. Plaintiff cannot
now complain of her own
counsel's tactics when they
elicit a response she does
not prefer.

OVERRULED

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

42