Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01851/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01851-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-01851-GPC-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BELINDA VIGIL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COLOPLAST CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01851-GPC-BGS

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL 

SUBMISSIONS BY ALL PARTIES 

ON PENDING DAUBERT 

MOTIONS.

(ECF Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 

99.)

To facilitate the Court’s gatekeeping function on the nine pending Daubert

motions, the Court ORDERS the Parties submit the full reports of their respective 

experts, not merely excerpts of the reports. (ECF Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.)

For example, on Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the opinion testimony of 

Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D., (ECF No. 97), Defendant has submitted excerpts of Dr. 

Rosenzweig’s two reports at ECF No. 97-2 and ECF No. 97-4. Plaintiffs have likewise 

submitted excerpts of Dr. Rosenzweig’s two reports at ECF No. 106-3 and ECF No. 106-

4. Neither Party has submitted full copies of Dr. Rosenzweig’s reports. Hence, with 

respect to Dr. Rosenzweig, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff, as Plaintiff has put forward 

Dr. Rosenzweig as an expert, submit his two reports, in full. The Court similarly 

ORDERS that each Party file the full reports of their experts.

Case 3:19-cv-01851-GPC-BGS Document 130 Filed 02/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:19-cv-01851-GPC-BGS

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 addition, to the extent that any motion seeks to limit portions of an expert report

– either instead of, or as an alternative to, excluding that report as a whole – the Court 

ORDERS that each Party submit one simple, concise table noting: (1) each report to be 

limited; (2) the page and line numbers, or the paragraph numbers, of the report that the 

motion seeks to limit/exclude; and (3) the page and line numbers, or the paragraph 

numbers, of the report that the motion does not seek to limit/exclude. The purpose of this 

document is to clarify to the Court which portions of the reports are to be 

limited/excluded from each Party’s perspective. The Court expects that these tables will 

not contain additional arguments or legal citations and are to serve merely as a 

demonstrative tool to help guide the Court in reviewing each motion.

To comply with this Order, the Court asks that the Parties submit one affidavit 

each (one for Plaintiffs, one for Defendant), and attach to that affidavit (a) one exhibit 

containing the tables indicating what portions of each report are to be limited (if any), and 

(b) one additional exhibit for each full expert report. If any of the motions or responses

currently filed with the Court have already provided the full, respective report(s) of their 

experts, counsel’s affidavit should indicate that and include a citation to the 

corresponding document. 

The Parties are to comply with this order, including through the delivery of 

courtesy paper copies to the Court, as soon as is practicable, and no later than Tuesday

February 25, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01851-GPC-BGS Document 130 Filed 02/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2