Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated et al

Filing 279

ORDER on Deposition Designations as to Scott Trerotola. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/6/2021. (nks)

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 Scott Trerotola.
DEPONENT

DEF
AFFIRM

PL OBJECTIONS

DEF RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

Running Objection to
Relevance & FRE 701:
Plaintiff objects on
grounds that this
testimony is not relevant
to this case, that this
witness has no personal
knowledge that is relevant
to this case, and that this
is an attempt to elicit
expert opinions from a
witness not designated as
such in violation of FRE
701. Plaintiff makes his
counter-designations in
the event the court
overrules his objections.

Bard’s response to
Plaintiffs “Running
Objection to Relevance &
RE 701”:
Plaintiff's running
objection was over-ruled
in the MDL, where the
Court stated: "The Court
overruled a number of
objections to allegedly
non-disclosed expert
opinions because the
questions generally were
about the doctor's own
practice and personal
experience using IVC
filters -- matters the
Court regards as relevant
factual evidence rather
than expert opinion
under Rule 702."

RESERVE as
to any specific
expert opinions
beyond the
scope of Dr.
Trerotola’s
personal
knowledge,
otherwise
OVERRULED

1

Furthermore, Dr.
Trerotola was deposed in
the MDL because of his
work, over many years,
with IVC filters and his
studies of IVC filters,
including Bard filters and
because of the work he
did directly with Bard as
a consultant to it on IVC
filters. Dr. Trerotola is
the Chief or
Interventional radiology
at the Hospital of the
University of
Pennsylvania. His
testimony is relevant to
steps Bard took to obtain
medical expert input on
the design, use and
warnings relating to its
filters, as well as to what
medical doctors utilizing
filters knew at various
times about filter
indications and
contraindications, filter
retrieval and other filter
related information. His
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge
through his experience as
a medical doctor as to the
indications for,
complications associated
with, implantation and
retrieval of IVC filters.
His testimony, elicited
principally through
questions by plaintiff’s
counsel, necessarily
provides information
based on his expertise
with IVC filters but he is
not a lay witness
improperly offering

2

expert opinions rather he
is a witness with fact
information relevant to
these cases.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

5:24-6:04

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

6:07-6:16

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

9:24-10:03

(9:25) Relevance & FRE
701
(10:01-10:03) Relevance
& FRE 701

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

16:04-16:07

(16:04-16:07) Relevance

SUSTAIN

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

19:07-19:14

(19:07-19:14)
foundation, relevance &
FRE 701

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

20:06-20:09

(20:06-20:09) Relevance

3

(9:25 – 10:03) The
witness is simply
introducing himself and
describing his
background, and
completing his answer to
questions designated by
Plaintiff immediately
above. He is not giving
expert opinion testimony.

(20:06-20:14) Dr.
Trerotola was deposed at
the insistence of
Plaintiffs, in the MDL,
because of his work over
many years as a
consultant to Bard on its
IVC filters. This
testimony involves his
answering Plaintiff’s
counsel’s question about
the various IVC filters he
has placed. The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

22:24-23:06

(22:24) Relevance
(23:01-23:06) Relevance

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

23:14-23:22

(31:17-31:24) Relevance

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

31:17-31:24

(22:24 – 23:06) Dr.
Trerotola was deposed at
the insistence of
Plaintiffs, in the MDL,
because of his work over
many years as a
consultant to Bard on its
IVC filters. In this
testimony, the witness
answers a question by
Plaintiff’s counsel about
his experience and
expectations relative to
the use of IVC filters.
The testimony is relevant
to his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness.

OVERRULED

OVERRULED

OVERRULED
(to the extent
that plaintiff’s
objection in
the previous
designation
was actually
intended to
apply to this
designation)

4

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

53:23-54:12

(54:06-54:12) Relevance
& FRE 701, hearsay,
foundation

(54:06-54:12) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

77:11-77:16

(77:11-77:16) Relevance
& FRE 701, foundation

The Plaintiff's object was
overruled in the MDL.
The testimony was
allowed. (77:11-77:23)
The testimony is relevant
to his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

78:08-80:10

(80:02-80:10) Relevance
& FRE 701, foundation

(78:08-78:20) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a

OVERRULED

5

witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

83:16-83:18

(83:16-83:18) Relevance
& FRE 701

(83:06-83:18) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

94:23-95:07

(94:23-94:24) relevance,
foundation, hearsay, FRE
701

The Plaintiff's objection
was overruled in the
MDL. The testimony was
allowed. (94:23-94:24)
The testimony is relevant
to his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his

OVERRULED

6

expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

102:12102:18

(102:12-102:18)
Relevance & FRE 701

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

107:02107:08

(102:12-102:18)
Relevance & FRE 701

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

125:16125:22

(125:16-125:22)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701

7

(125:01 – 125:07) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.
(125:16-125:24) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness

SUSTAIN

improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

125:24126:05

(125:24-126:05)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701

(125:16-125:24) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.
(126:01-126:15) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

SUSTAIN

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

126:07126:15

(126:01-126:15)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701

(126:01-126:15) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to

SUSTAIN

8

his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

177:05177:23

(177:05-177:23)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701

9

The Plaintiff's object was
overruled in the MDL.
The testimony was
allowed. (177:05-177:23)
The testimony is relevant
to his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

178:20179:03

(178:20-178:24)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701,
anecdotal/relevance
(179:01-179:03)
relevance, foundation,
hearsay, FRE 701,
anecdotal/relevance

The Plaintiff's object was
overruled in the MDL.
The testimony was
allowed. (178:20-178:24)
The testimony is relevant
to his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.
(179:01-179:03) The
testimony is relevant to
his experience as a
medical doctor in the use
of IVC filters, and goes to
his credibility as a
witness. His testimony,
elicited principally
through questions by
plaintiff’s counsel,
necessarily provides
information based on his
expertise with IVC filters
but he is not a lay witness
improperly offering
expert opinions. The
testimony is based on his
own personal knowledge.

OVERRULED

DEPONENT

PL
COUNTER
S

DEF OBJECTIONS

PL RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

10

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

8:03-9:23

This is not a proper
counter designation. It is
not necessary for
completeness. Plaintiff
should have designated
the testimony
affirmatively.

Plaintiff does not
understand the objection.
The Plaintiff is not
making an affirmative
offer of the witness’
testimony. He is a
witness called at the
insistence of Bard. The
testimony is clearly
relevant and admissible
under FRE 611. The
Plaintiff has not raised
FRE 32(6) or FRE 106 as
to optional completeness.
The testimony is properly
designated as cross or a
counter designation in
response to the testimony
offered by Bard. Plaintiff
will include the testimony
in her cross/counter to
the direct testimony
offered by Bard at trial.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

10:06-11:06

This is not a proper
counter designation. It is
not necessary for
completeness. Plaintiff
should have designated
the testimony
affirmatively.

Plaintiff does not
understand the objection.
The Plaintiff is not
making an affirmative
offer of the witness’
testimony. He is a
witness called at the
insistence of Bard. The
testimony is clearly
relevant and admissible
under FRE 611. The
Plaintiff has not raised
FRE 32(6) or FRE 106 as
to optional completeness.
The testimony is properly
designated as cross or a
counter designation in
response to the testimony
offered by Bard. Plaintiff
will include the testimony
in her cross/counter to

OVERRULED

11

the direct testimony
offered by Bard at trial.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

12:16-12:19
beginning
with ""Do""

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

12:21-12:22

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

14:01-14:03

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation. The witness
states “I don’t think I am
qualified to answer that
question”. 12:21 – 22

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The lack
of knowledge by this
witness is relevant and
probative.

SUSTAIN

Rules 401 and 402 not
relevant

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias

OVERRULED

12

and credibility. This “fact
witness’” contacts with
Bard’s counsel before
testifying is relevant to
his bias and credibility.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

19:23-20:05

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

21:17-21:22

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

22:03-22:06
beginning
with ""I
speak""

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

24:14-24:24

(24:14-24:19) Rules 601,
602, lack of foundation.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

SUSTAIN

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

25:19-25:21

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically

SUSTAIN

13

addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

26:01-26:03

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

SUSTAIN

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

26:05-26:06

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation. Rules 401,
402, 403. Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The

SUSTAIN

14

testimony is relevant and
probative.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

26:13-26:22

(26:19 – 26:21) Rules
601, 602, lack of
foundation. Rules 401,
402, 403. Irrelevant and
any probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

SUSTAIN

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

27:02-27:04

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

SUSTAIN

15

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

27:14-27:21

Rules 401, 402, and 403
– testimony concerns
what physician would
have wanted to know /
would expect a
manufacturer to tell
him/her. Not a counter to
testimony designated

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

28:10-28:19

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically addresses this
issue at 1:17-31:24.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

29:23-30:03

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his

OVERRULED

16

testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically addresses this
issue at 31:17-31:24.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

35:13-35:19

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

36:04-37:04

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

37:09-38:10

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

40:16-41:11

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

41:24-42:05

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

42:19-43:08

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

45:12-45:22

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

46:09-46:11

17

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

48:14-48:23

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

49:20-50:03

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

52:07-52:11

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

52:21-53:01

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

55:22-55:24

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

57:06-57:14

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

58:10-58:17

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically addresses this
issue at 53:23-54:12.

OVERRULED

Rules 401, 402 and 403
not relevant and not a
counter to prior
testimony

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of

OVERRULED

18

IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. B

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

59:09-59:17

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

63:18-63:24

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

74:24-76:05

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

79:10-79:17

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

80:11-80:22

Rules 401, 402 and 403
not relevant and not a
counter to prior
testimony

19

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

84:21-85:19

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

86:09-86:24

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

20

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

87:04-87:06

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

87:14-88:06

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

92:01-92:12

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a

OVERRULED

21

consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

92:17-93:03

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

93:08-93:11

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard

OVERRULED

22

specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the Recovery filter
at 53:23-54:12, 125:16126:05.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

98:16-99:07

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

99:15-99:21

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

103:18104:03

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

105:12105:17

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

107:13108:02

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

108:10108:12

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

108:18108:23

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

121:20122:04

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation.

23

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff

SUSTAIN

is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative.
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).

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

123:18123:21
beginning
with ""You""

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

124:07124:17

Rules 401, 402 and 403.
Not relevant

24

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. The testimony

OVERRULED

is very relevant to the
failure to warn issues and
Bard negligence.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

133:05133:13

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

134:24135:11

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

137:04137:11

Rules 401 & 402 –
Irrelevant. Testimony
does not involve
filter/product at issue.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the Recovery filter
at 53:23-54:12, 125:16126:05

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

138:07138:10

Rules 401, 402, 403.
Irrelevant and any
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Not a counter to
testimony designated.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically

OVERRULED

25

addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the Recovery filter
at 53:23-54:12, 125:16126:05

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

141:20142:22

Rules 401, 402, 403,
testimony does not relate
to the filter at issue,
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect.

26

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact
his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure

OVERRULED

to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

145:09145:12

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation. Rules 401,
402, 403, testimony does
not relate to the filter at
issue, probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect.

27

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact
his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

145:15145:17

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation. Rules 401,
402, 403, testimony does
not relate to the filter at
issue, probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact
his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

145:19145:24

Rules 601, 602, lack of
foundation. Rules 401,
402, 403, testimony does
not relate to the filter at
issue, probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff

OVERRULED

28

is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact
his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

147:14148:06

Rules 401, 402, 403,
testimony does not relate
to the filter at issue,
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Subject to
objection, Bard counters
148: 14 – 19

29

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact

OVERRULED

his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial.

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

153:17155:03

Rules 401, 402, 403,
testimony does not relate
to the filter at issue,
probative value
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Subject to
objection, Bard counters
155:4 – 9, and 167: 15 –
22, 168: 1 – 16.

30

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. The fact
his is so close to Bard
that he is privy to
information that is not
generally available to
other physicians is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. The
testimony is not unfairly
prejudicial. The added
lines requested are not

OVERRULED

proper “optional
completeness requests”

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

157:09157:21

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

160:09161:05

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

165:07165:16

(165:17 – 165:20)
Attorney colloquy should
be withdrawn.

Plaintiff will remove
165:17-165:20

MOOT

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

165:21167:14

(165:17 – 165:20)
Attorney colloquy should
be withdrawn.

Plaintiff will remove
165:17-165:20

MOOT

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

172:13174:11

Rules 401, 402, the
document shown to the
witness relates to a filter
and/or complication mode
not at issues in this case,
probative value is
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Rules 601, 602,
lack of foundation. The
witness is shown a
document he has never
seen, he did not author,
he does not know the
author or recipient of the
document and it asked to
interpret what the author
meant by the document.

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and

OVERRULED

31

use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. In fact he
is so close to Bard that he
is privy to information
that is not generally
available to other
physicians. This inquiry
as to whether Bard shared
negative information
about it filters with him is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. It also
relates to Bard’s negligent
conduct. The testimony is
not unfairly prejudicial.
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).

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

174:13175:13

Rules 401, 402, the
document shown to the
witness relates to a filter
and/or complication mode
not at issues in this case,
probative value is
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Rules 601, 602,
lack of foundation. The
witness is shown a
document he has never

32

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its

OVERRULED

seen, he did not author,
he does not know the
author or recipient of the
document and it asked to
interpret what the author
meant by the document.

33

IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. In fact he
is so close to Bard that he
is privy to information
that is not generally
available to other
physicians. This inquiry
as to whether Bard shared
negative information
about it filters with him is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. It also
relates to Bard’s negligent
conduct. The testimony is
not unfairly prejudicial.
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).

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

175:15175:24

Rules 401, 402, the
document shown to the
witness relates to a filter
and/or complication mode
not at issues in this case,
probative value is
outweighed by prejudicial
effect. Rules 601, 602,
lack of foundation. The
witness is shown a
document he has never
seen, he did not author,
he does not know the
author or recipient of the
document and it asked to
interpret what the author
meant by the document.

34

Bard has consistently
argued in support of the
admissibility of this
witness’ testimony that
he is a medical doctor
experienced in the use of
IVC filter and his
testimony specifically
addresses his work as a
consultant with and for
Bard with regard to its
IVC filters. The Plaintiff
is entitled to test the
depth of that knowledge
and to challenge his bias
and credibility. The
testimony is relevant and
probative. Bard
specifically references the
witness’ knowledge and
use of the G2 filter at
53:23-54:12, 95:1895:19, 125:16-126:05,
177:05-177:23. In fact he
is so close to Bard that he
is privy to information
that is not generally
available to other
physicians. This inquiry
as to whether Bard shared
negative information
about it filters with him is
relevant to his bias and
credibility and the failure
to warn issues. It also
relates to Bard’s negligent
conduct. The testimony is
not unfairly prejudicial.
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

OVERRULED

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).

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

203:24204:04

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

204:06204:14

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

204:16204:17

DEPONENT

DEF
COUNTERS
TO
COUNTERS

PL OBJECTIONS

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

79:18-80:01

FRE 403 – this
testimony is in Bard’s
direct examination of this
from this witness and to
relay it would be
unnecessarily cumulative,
misleading and unfairly
prejudicial as it would be
an attempt reinforce the
testimony in the jurors’
minds.

OVERRULED

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

132:16132:22

FRE 401, 402, 403 &
611 – the testimony is
completely out of context
and is not relevant or
probative. The testimony
is confusing and likely to

SUSTAIN

35

DEF RESPONSE TO
OBJECTIONS

COURT
RULING

mislead. The testimony
exceeds the scope of the
Plaintiff’s cross.I

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

137:12137:18

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

138:11138:17

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

148:14148:19

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

155:04155:09

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

167:15167:22

Trerotola,
Scott
01/20/2017

FRCP 32(6) and FRE
106 – Optional
completeness in fairness
the remainder to the line
of questioning should be
included 137:19-138:01
as the Plaintiff will not be
able to correct the
omission on “re-cross”.

OVERRULED

FRCP 32(6) and FRE
106 – Optional
completeness in fairness
the remainder to the line
of questioning should be
included 148:20-149:15
as the Plaintiff will not be
able to correct the
omission on “re-cross”.

OVERRULED

168:01168:16

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.

36

Entered this 6th day of June, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

37