Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-md-02641-10/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Order Relates to: All Actions 

MDL No. 15-2641 

 Having reviewed the parties’ briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Docs. 1214, 

1476, 1590, 1976), the Court needs additional factual information to resolve the choice of 

law issue. The Court will allow the parties to submit additional evidence and targeted 

legal briefing. The Court will hear oral arguments at the upcoming case management 

conference. In an attempt to narrow the issues, the Court will provide the parties with 

several preliminary conclusions. The Court will list several issues the parties should 

address in their memoranda. 

 The parties agree on fundamental issues. Both sides agree that state privilege law 

controls. Docs. 1476 at 5; 1590 at 2. Both sides agree that the Court should follow In re 

Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability 

Litigation, MDL No. 2100, 2011 WL 1375011 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2011). Docs. 1476 at 5-

6; 1590 at 2. Both sides agree that, as in In re Yasmin, the Court should determine which 

state’s privilege law controls by applying the most significant relationship test found in 

Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 139. Docs. 1476 at 6; 1590 at 2. The parties 

disagree, however, on which state has the most significant relationship to the 

communications at issue. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2132 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 The parties should address the following issues in their memoranda, providing 

factual and evidentiary support for their assertions: 

 1. The factors identified in comment e to Section 139. These include at least 

the following: 

 a. If there was a prior relationship between the attorneys and clients, 

where it was based? 

 b. Where relevant oral attorney-client communications took place. 

 c. Where relevant written attorney-client communications were 

received. 

 d. Where any relevant inspection occurred. 

 2. Whether A.R.S. § 12-2234 constitutes a “strong public policy of the forum” 

for purposes of Section 139(1). 

 3. Any relevant case law applying the comment e factors. 

 4. Any other factual information or legal arguments the parties wish to 

address. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The parties shall file simultaneous eight-page memoranda addressing these 

issues no later than 12:00 noon on June 20, 2016. 

2. The Court will hear oral arguments on the choice of law issues during the 

June 21, 2016 case management conference. 

Dated this 13th day of June, 2016. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 2132 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2