Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01103/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01103-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

- 1 - 10cv1103-BTM (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTAL GORTAT, Individually and as heir

to an on behalf of the Estate of Stephen Gortat,

Deceased, and as Next Friend of Morgan

Gortat, a minor, and Zakary Gortat, a minor;

RALPH GORTAT; PAMELA HUTCHINS,

Civil No. 10-cv-1103-BTM (POR)

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO QUASH

[Document No. 2]

v.

MYLAN, INC.; MYLAN

PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; MYLAN

TECHNOLOGIES, INC,

Defendants.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena of Ray D. Gary. (Doc. 2.) 

On June 11, 2010, Defendants’ filed a Response in Opposition. (Doc. 4.) On June 16, 2010,

Plaintiffs filed a Reply. (Doc. 5.) 

Plaintiffs are individuals in wrongful death, product liability lawsuits pending in three

distinct federal district courts. The cases arise from the deaths of decedents Stephen Gortat, Joseph

LaPaglia, and Linda Burrell as a result of their use of allegedly defective fentanyl pain patches

designed by Defendants. In each lawsuit, Plaintiffs have named Dr. Iain M. McIntyre as a testifying

expert on issues relating to forensic toxicology. On May 7, 2010, Defendants served a subpoena on

a non-party witness, Ray D. Gary, seeking his deposition. Mr. Gary assisted Dr. McIntyre in a study

comparing fentanyl levels found in peripheral blood samples with fentanyl liver levels in persons

whose autopsies have been performed by the San Diego Medical Examiner’s Office. (Doc. 2-1 at

Case 3:10-cv-01103-BTM-POR Document 7 Filed 06/18/10 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 10cv1103-BTM (POR)

5.) Although the study does not involve the autopsies of any of the decedents whose deaths are at

issue in these lawsuits, the study appears to be a basis of Dr. McIntyre’s expertise. 

Plaintiffs contend Mr. Gary has no knowledge of any facts relevant to the issues in this

lawsuit because he did not measure the fentanyl levels of any of the decedents whose deaths are at

issue. (Doc. 2-1 at 4.) Rather, Plaintiffs contend Mr. Gary has expert opinions regarding issues

related to postmortem distribution of fentanyl that are based on his education, training and

experience. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiffs contend the proposed testimony of Mr. Gary would be expert

testimony precluded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) and should therefore be

quashed. (Doc. 2-1 at 7-13.)

Defendants contend Mr. Gary is a percipient witness, not an expert, who will be called to

testify about his observations and procedures when he assisted Dr. McIntyre in a study of fentanyl

levels. Defendants state they will not ask Mr. Gary to give opinion testimony. (Doc. 4 at 11.) 

Second, Defendants assert the factors identified by the Courts as relevant to assessing whether Rule

45(c)(3)(B)(ii) should bar testimony weigh in favor of permitting Mr. Gary’s deposition. (Id. at 3.) 

Third, Defendants contend Plaintiffs lack standing to quash the subpoena. (Id.) Further, Defendants

are willing to compensate Mr. Gary at a reasonable rate for his time spent in this deposition. (Id. at

10.) 

FRCP 45(c)(3)(B)(ii) permits a Court to quash a subpoena if it requires “disclosing an

unretained expert’s opinion or information that does not describe specific occurrences in dispute and

results from the expert’s study that was not requested by a party.” 

Upon a thorough review of the parties’ papers, and in light of the fact Defendants seek Mr.

Gary’s deposition for factual testimony rather than expert testimony, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash. However, questions directed

to and the documents sought from Mr. Gary, a percipient witness, shall relate solely to the

techniques, practices and procedures which he and Mr. McIntyre employed in researching the postmortem redistribution of fentanyl. 

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01103-BTM-POR Document 7 Filed 06/18/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 10cv1103-BTM (POR)

2. If an issue arises during the deposition of Mr. Gary, the parties shall comply with the

practices of the Southern District of California. The parties shall meet and confer, and if the issue

remains unresolved, the parties shall contact the Court by phone to receive an immediate ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2010

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Barry T. Moskowitz

All parties

Case 3:10-cv-01103-BTM-POR Document 7 Filed 06/18/10 Page 3 of 3