Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

NO. 10 

The Court held a third case management conference with the parties on 

March 31, 2016. The conference was scheduled to address ongoing matters and a 

number of issues identified in Case Management Order No. 8 (“CMO 8”) (Doc. 519). 

I. Second Phase Discovery.

A. Fact Discovery. 

 Fact discovery is under way. The parties reported that they have scheduled seven 

depositions and are in the process of scheduling more. The parties also continue to 

discuss a number of discovery issues that will be addressed later in this Order. The 

parties are encouraged to continue exchanging relevant information on discovery topics 

on which they agree, even if other issues need to be presented to the Court. 

 The Court asked the parties whether special deposition scheduling is needed, such 

as blocking out specific weeks for depositions and double-tracking or triple-tracking 

depositions. Counsel stated they do not believe such deposition scheduling is needed at 

this time. The parties should provide an update on this issue in the status report to be 

filed before the next case management conference. 

 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 B. Mature Cases. 

 Case Management Order No. 4 (as amended) identifies 13 mature cases that are 

not governed by the Master Complaint and Master Responsive Pleading and that are not 

generally subject to ongoing discovery. After further discussion, the parties have agreed 

that the Conn, Milton, and Mintz cases identified in Case Management Order No. 4 

(Doc. 1108) should no longer be treated as mature cases. Rather, they will be treated as 

all other cases in this MDL. The remaining 10 cases identified in CMO 4 will continue to 

be treated as mature cases under that CMO. The parties should address these cases in the 

joint status report they file before the next case management conference, and particularly 

when these cases will be ready for remand. 

II. Bellwether Selection Process.

 Consistent with the direction in CMO 8, the parties have addressed an appropriate 

bellwether selection process. They have submitted a stipulation related to the process 

(Doc. 923), and a stipulation regarding fact sheets to be exchanged during the process 

(Doc. 1153). 

 The Court discussed the proposed procedures and fact sheets with the parties, 

making some suggestions for modifications. The parties will make modifications to their 

stipulations and, by April 15, 2016, provide the Court with a stipulated case management 

order to govern the bellwether selection process and fact sheets. 

 As part of this work, the parties will provide the Court with a stipulated order 

regarding the collection of records. This stipulated order will be provided by 

April 15, 2016. 

 While discussing the bellwether process, the Court discussed the issue of Lexecon

waivers. The parties will confer to see if they can agree on a procedure for dealing with 

Lexecon waivers. Plaintiffs’ counsel are of the view that such issues should be addressed 

up front so as not to interfere with the selection of cases after much work has been 

invested in the bellwether pool. Defense counsel does not disagree, but expressed 

concern about choosing the Bellwether pool solely from cases in which Plaintiffs have 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

agreed to waive Lexecon. The Court described for the parties the approaches taken in a 

number of other MDL cases. The parties will confer to see if they can reach agreement. 

The Court will also do inquire further into cross-designations for trials in transferor 

districts under 28 U.S.C. § 292(b) and (d). 

III. ESI and Previously Searched Custodians.

 The parties have filed a joint motion to extend the deadline in CMO 8 for 

presenting a matrix to the Court outlining ESI disagreements. Doc. 1151. The motion 

notes that the parties have been working on this issue diligently, and requests a new 

deadline for submitting disagreements to the Court by May 16, 2016. The Court will 

grant the joint motion, but advised the parties that it will not be inclined to grant 

additional extensions. ESI issues need to be resolved soon. ESI production and review 

tends to take a significant amount of time, and if ESI issues are not resolved soon, there 

may be too little time remaining in the discovery schedule for a thorough production and 

review of ESI. The parties will also continue to address the issue of new custodians 

(CMO 8, § IV) and submit any disagreements to the Court, in a matrix, by May 16, 2016. 

IV. FDA Inspection and Warning Letter.

 The Court has reviewed the memoranda and other materials provided by the 

parties with respect to discovery related to the FDA warning letter. See Docs. 693, 697, 

850, 989, 1152. The Court provided initial feedback on the issues raised. The Court 

views discovery related to under-reporting or non-reporting of problems with retrievable 

filters to be clearly relevant to this case. Actual failure rates will be relevant to Plaintiffs’ 

negligence and product defect claims. Evidence regarding representations made by 

Defendants concerning failure rates will be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for fraud and 

misrepresentation. The Court does not view discovery on these issues to be 

disproportionate in light of the factors set forth in Rule 26(b)(1). 

 At the same time, the Court sees little relevancy in the Recovery Cone issues. The 

Recovery Cone has always been available for retrieval of Defendants’ filters, the FDA 

has now approved use of the Recovery Cone, and no claim in this case is based on 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

alleged defects in the Recovery Cone. Defendants have offered to produce Ms. Edwards 

for a deposition on the Recovery Cone issue, and the Court agrees, but the Court believes 

that other discovery is not warranted. 

 In addition to this guidance, the Court noted that the three or four employees who 

report to Chad Modra should be deposed. They appear to have relevant information. 

 With this feedback in hand, the parties are to discuss the specific discovery 

requests of Plaintiffs with respect to the under-reporting issue. If they are unable to reach 

agreement on appropriate discovery, the parties should provide the Court with a matrix 

setting forth their specific areas of disagreement by April 15, 2016.

V. Discovery Regarding Simon Nitenol Filter (“SNF”).

 The Court has reviewed the matrix provided by the parties on this issue. 

Doc. 1161. The Court provided guidance during the case management conference. 

 The Court does not believe that discovery related to the design or testing of the 

SNF is relevant to this case. Plaintiffs do not contend that the SNF is defective. To the 

contrary, they intend to argue that the SNF was a safe and effective product, that 

retrievable filters were less safe, and that Defendants made misrepresentations to the 

FDA and the public when they asserted that the retrievable filters were substantially 

equivalent to the SNF or as safe as the SNF. In light of these positions, the actual design 

and testing of the SNF will not be at issue in this case. 

 The Court also concludes, however, that sales and marketing materials related to 

the SNF, documents comparing filter performance and failure rates to the SNF, and 

internal communications on these subjects are relevant. At the same time, it would be 

unduly burdensome to require Defendants to produce every document related to sales and 

marketing of SNF over its 20-plus year life, or every communication related to that 

subject. The Court instructed the parties to confer and attempt to reach agreement on 

appropriate discovery with respect to these subjects. If the parties are unable to agree, 

they should include this subject in the matrix to be submitted to the Court on 

April 15, 2016. Plaintiffs should be precise in the discovery they seek so that the matrix 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

will be as focused as possible. 

 The parties have reached agreement on regulatory communications relating to the 

SNF. Defendants will be providing discovery on this issue. 

VI. Depositions of Previously Deposed Witnesses.

 The parties are in the process of negotiating a deposition protocol for the case. 

This protocol presumably will include agreement on depositions of previously deposed 

witnesses and witnesses related to the Kay Fuller issue. The parties will provide a 

stipulated deposition protocol to the Court by April 15, 2016. 

VII. Privilege Log Issues.

 The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to resolve privilege log issues. The 

Court has reviewed the status reports provided by the parties (see Docs. 705, 984), as 

well as Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. 1214). 

 The parties have been unable to reach agreement on 133 documents identified 

during their first sampling effort. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel with respect to 

these documents (Doc. 1214) that identifies several specific legal issues and attaches a 

spreadsheet identifying the documents and setting forth a summary of Plaintiffs’ position 

with respect to each document. Rather than simply completing the briefing on this issue, 

the Court directed the parties to take the following steps. 

 By the close of business on April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs shall identify for Defendants 

the specific legal issues addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel.1

 In addition, with 

respect to each of these issues, Plaintiffs shall identify three documents from among the 

133 documents still in dispute. 

 By April 11, 2016, Defendants shall file a memorandum with the Court 

addressing the specific legal categories identified by Plaintiff. Defendants shall set forth 

their legal arguments on each of these issues. On the same day, Defendants shall provide 

Plaintiffs with the identification of two additional documents for each of the legal 

 

1

 The Court sees discrete issues in the following sections of Plaintiffs’ motion: IV.B.1, IV.B.2, IV.B.3.a, IV.B.3.b, IV.B.3.c, IV.B.3.d, IV.B.3.e, and IV.C, but Plaintiffs 

are free to narrow the list. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

categories, chosen from the 133 documents in dispute, as well as a draft matrix setting 

forth Defendants’ arguments (in summary form – the memoranda need not be repeated) 

with respect to the five documents chosen by the parties for each legal category. 

 By April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file a reply memorandum which addresses the 

specific legal issues identified for Defendants on April 4, 2016. Plaintiffs shall attach to 

the memorandum the matrix which sets forth, in summary form, the parties’ respective 

arguments with respect to the five documents chosen for each of the legal issues 

addressed in the briefing. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall provide defense counsel with a draft of 

the matrix two days before this filing so that defense counsel can make any needed 

adjustments to their section of the matrix. On April 22, 2016, Defendants shall provide 

the Court with in camera copies of the documents listed in the matrix. 

 The Court will enter an order on the legal issues and the five documents chosen 

for each issue. The intent will be to provide guidance to the parties concerning the 

Court’s view of privilege and work product issues, hopefully to help the parties in 

resolving additional disagreements. 

 The Court and parties also discussed part B of the parties’ joint report. Doc. 705. 

The Court directed the parties to engage in the process described in part B, but only with 

respect to Plaintiffs’ seven proposed categories. The Court sees no purpose in addressing 

Bard’s proposed categories. The Court agrees that the parties should provide a joint 

report to the Court by May 27, 2016, describing their progress and the number of 

documents that remain in dispute. If the number is large, the Court most likely will 

appoint a special master to work with the parties in resolving the privilege log issues. 

VIII. Equitable Tolling.

 Defendants have filed a brief on this issue. Doc. 1146. The parties will brief this 

issue under the time limits set forth in the relevant rules. The Court will rule on it in due 

course. 

IX. Next Case Management Conference.

 The next Case Management Conference will be held on June 22, 2016 at 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

10:00 a.m. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report on issues 

mentioned in this order and any issues they wish to address at the conference by 

June 15, 2016. If issues arise in the meantime that require prompt decision, the parties 

should place a conference call to the Court. 

 Dated this 1st day of April, 2016. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 1319 Filed 04/01/16 Page 7 of 7