Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00567-0/pdf.json

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

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

CHARLES ROBERT PERRY PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:05CV567GH

ETHICON, INC.; ET AL. DEFENDANTS 

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are a number of discovery matters. Defendant

Ethicon Endo -Surgery (“EES”) has filed a motion for a protective order. It states that

a protective order is appropriate with respect to certain discovery plaintiff has

requested; i.e., designs and drawings for surgical staplers manufactured by EES;

financial documents, contracts and agreements under which surgical staplers

manufactured and sold by EES were sold to EES customers and vendors; Product

Inquiry Verification Reports; Medical Device Reports submitted by EES to the Food

and Drug Administration; reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

concerning deaths, serious illness, serious injuries and other significant adverse

device experiences involving surgical staplers manufactured by EES; and documents

discussing potential hazards, malfunctions, defects or potential improvements of

surgical staplers manufactured by EES. 

 Plaintiff states that EES has not established good cause for the entry of a

protective order. Additionally plaintiff desires to share documents with other

plaintiffs’ attorneys who have pending lawsuits against the defendants involving

defective medical devices. Plaintiff has cited a number of cases where courts have

denied protective orders. The view that has commonly been expressed is succinctly

stated below:

There is nothing inherently culpable about sharing information obtained

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 24 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 5
-2-

through discovery. The availability of the discovery information may

reduce time and money which must be expended in similar proceedings,

and may allow for effective, speedy, and efficient representation. Unless

it can be shown that the discovering party is exploiting the instant

litigation solely to assist litigation in a foreign forum, federal courts

allow full use of the information in other forums.

Patterson v. Ford Motor Co., 85 F. R. D. 152, 154 (W. D. Tex. 1980)(citations omitted).

See also Deford v. Schmid Products Co., 120 F. R. D. 648, 654 (D. Md. 1987) (sharing

of information with other litigants “is an appropriate goal under the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure”); Cippollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 113 F. R D. 86, 87 (D. N.J.

1986) (no good cause for concealment of otherwise non-confidential materials from

public. “By requiring each plaintiff in every similar action to run the same gauntlet

over and over again serves no useful purpose other than to create barriers and

discourage litigation”); Ericson v. Ford Motor Co., 107 F. R. D. 92, 94 (E. D. Ark.

1985) (denying entry of protective order where attempt to avoid potential for

embarrassment or harm. “Much of the increase,[in the number of requests for

protective orders] though, must be attributed to a practice among some attorneys to

automatically seek protective orders in every case where any potential for

embarrassment or harm, no matter how slight, exists. Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26 does not

require courts to utilize their scare resources on such unnecessary satellite

litigation.”); Parsons v. General Motors Corp., 85 F. R. D. 724, 725 n. 1 (N.D. Ga.

1980) (“federal rules do not foreclose collaboration among litigants, and . . . the

possibility that plaintiff will share the results of discovery with any other litigant”

does not establish good cause to justify a protective order) 

 The Court agrees that EES has not established good cause for the entry of such

a restrictive protective order. It is not enough to say that EES is engaged in a highly

competitive business and that EES must be protected from competing companies that

seek a competitive disadvantage. EES has not demonstrated how any of the items

listed as needing protection would in fact create a competitive disadvantage to it See

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 24 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 5
-3-

Gen’l Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F. 2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973) (burden

is upon movant for protective order to “show necessity of its issuance, which

contemplates ‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from

stereotyped and conclusory statements . . .’”) EES’ concern with the competitive

nature of the business is addressed by plaintiff’s agreement not to disclose the

information to defendants’ competitors. The Court will not grant the request for a

protective order; however, if the parties can stipulate to one which allows plaintiff to

share the information, they can submit it to the Court for approval. 

Also pending before the Court are plaintiff’s first and second motions to

compel. Plaintiff states that defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson and Johnson

(“separate defendants”) have failed to answer interrogatories and requests for

production by stating that they were “not involved in the manufacturing, providing,

assembling or selling the product in question,” (i.e., a surgical stapler). Separate

defendants have responded to the motion to compel, reiterating their noninvolvement.

They have attached the affidavit of the senior counsel at Johnson & Johnson who is

also Assistant Secretary of EES and Ethicon, Inc. He avers that EES owns all of the

patents covering the devise in question and that EES is solely responsible for the

design, manufacture, assembly, marketing and selling of the ATW45-45MM

Articulating Linear cutter.

Plaintiff refutes the affidavit, stating that Kim’s affidavit is not based on

personal knowledge. Plaintiff also states that separate defendants can respond to

some of the discovery requests, even if their position that they had no direct role in

the design, manufacture, etc. of the device is correct.

Separate defendants have just provided a blanket objection to all the discovery

requests. The Court agrees that separate defendants should respond to those

discovery requests on which they have information, e.g., their organization charts, as

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 24 Filed 10/27/05 Page 3 of 5
-4-

requested in requests for production 16 and 19. Separate defendants should provide

the information within thirty days of the date of this Order.

Plaintiff has filed a second motion to compel. It seeks certain information from

EES. EES has provided some of the information sought, but objects to other requests.

EES wants to limit the information sought to the specific model of stapler which

allegedly malfunctioned during plaintiff’s surgery. EES states that it manufactures

all types of stapling devices, and to produce information regarding those other

staplers, including complaints that were made, would be unduly burdensome and

unlikely to lead to relevant evidence.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that EES has taken an inappropriately narrow

view of discovery. That EES makes other types of staplers does not mean that

information regarding problems with those staplers would be irrelevant. As plaintiff

notes, some of the same parts are used in different models of staplers. Thus, EES

should provide the information requested in Interrogatories12 and 13.

In request for production 5, plaintiff asked for a design drawing for the surgical

stapler used during plaintiff’s surgery. Plaintiff states that his expert needs the

information requested. EES objects stated it would involve thousands of documents

that are not relevant. The Court fails to see how drawings of the device would be

irrelevant. EES is directed to provide the information requested in request for

production no. 5. Additionally, as the Court is persuaded that information regarding

other staplers is relevant, EES shall produce the information requested in requests

for production 7, 8 (defendant can redact the information pursuant to 21 CFR §

20.63(f), 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. 

Accordingly, the motion for protective order is denied; the first and second

motions to compel are granted as set forth above. Defendants are directed to provide

the information within thirty days of the date of this Order. Because the Court has

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 24 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 5
-5-

denied EES’ motion for protective order, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file records

under seal is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00567-GH Document 24 Filed 10/27/05 Page 5 of 5