Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03707/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03707-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 10/19/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD RANDALL, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDTRONIC, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:05-cv-3707 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO

STAY DISCOVERY UNTIL

CONCLUSION OF HEARING 

ON PENDING MOTIONS 

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Medtronic, Inc. ("Medtronic") moves for an order staying all discovery until the

presiding judge resolves its pending motion for summary judgment, currently scheduled to be heard on

December 12, 2005. Plaintiff Richard Randall ("Randall") opposes the motion and argues that he needs to

complete some discovery to oppose the motion. He requests, therefore, that the hearing date on the

summary judgment motion be continued to January 9, 2006; that he be permitted to file his opposition brief,

after limited discovery, on December 12, 2005; and, that the deadline for the parties to meet and confer as

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Randall also requests that Medtronic's pending motion for judgment on the pleadings be moved to November

28, 2005. In an order issued on September 28, 2005, however, the presiding judge continued all pending motions to December

12, 2005, thereby mooting this portion of Randall's request. 

2

required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f) be shortened.1 The discovery issues were fully briefed and heard by

the Court on shortened time on October 19, 2005. Based on all papers filed to date, as well as on the oral

argument of counsel, the Court grants Medtronic's request to stay discovery until the resolution of the

pending motions on December 12, 2005 and, therefore, denies Randall's requests to continue that hearing

date and shorten the time for the parties to meet and confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f). 

II. BACKGROUND

Randall filed this products liability action after he was forced to undergo surgery to remove and

replace a defective Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ("ICD") manufactured by Medtronic. Randall

contends that Medtronic knew the ICDs it manufactured were defective, but that it concealed the defect

from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in order to gain market and sales approval. Once the

FDA discovered the defect, Medtronic was forced to recall the ICDs, thereby subjecting Randall to what

he alleges was a "complex and risky surgical procedure." Following his surgery, Randall filed a complaint in

state court against both Medtronic and O'Connor Hospital, where his surgery had been performed,

advancing claims for strict liability, negligence and breach of implied and express warranties. 

Medtronic removed the case to this Court and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, as well

as a motion for summary judgment. Both motions were originally noticed for hearing before the presiding

judge on October 24, 2005. A week after Medtronic filed its motions, Randall moved to remand the case

for absence of diversity as he contends all parties are California residents. That motion was noticed for

hearing on October 31, 2005. Due to the fact that Medtronic's motions were scheduled to be heard prior

to his motion to remand, Randall requested that the presiding judge move the hearing date on Medtronic's

motions to January, thereby enlarging his time to respond to the motions and enabling him to engage in

what he contends is necessary discovery for purposes of the pending motions. In response, the presiding

judge continued the hearing dates on all three motions to December 12, 2005, and referred Randall's

discovery request to this Court for determination. Thereafter, Medtronic filed its motion for protective

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

order, requesting that all discovery be stayed in the case until the presiding judge rules on the pending

motions, particularly its motion for summary judgment, which Medtronic contends involves only a legal issue

of federal preemption, requires no discovery, and is dispositive of Randall's state law claims. 

Randall opposes the request to stay discovery and contends that Medtronic is purposely avoiding

discovery to conceal its deceptive behavior regarding the manufacture of the ICDs. Although he has

propounded discovery to Medtronic, Randall argues that Medtronic is producing only the documents which

it deems relevant to the pending motions, rather than providing all responsive documents. He contends that,

in order to oppose the motion for summary judgment filed against him, he needs to obtain evidence

reflecting that Medtronic knew, prior to obtaining FDA approval, its ICDs were defective. As a result, he

asks that the motion to stay discovery be denied, that the parties be ordered to meet and confer pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f) as soon as possible, and that the hearing on the motion for summary judgment be

continued to January 9, 2006, making his opposition to that motion due on December 19, 2005. 

III. STANDARDS

Rule 26(d) provides that discovery shall not commence, absent a court order or agreement of the

parties, until the parties have conferred regarding a discovery plan, as set forth in subsection (f). Pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(f), the parties must meet and confer at least 21 days prior to a scheduling

conference. Although Rule 26 does not refer specifically to a stay of discovery, the Rule does provide that

the Court may set whatever limits on discovery it deems appropriate, including constraints on the number

and methods of discovery. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(2). Discovery may also be limited by the Court for

good cause shown "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

IV. DISCUSSION

The basis for Medtronic's request for a protective order is that its summary judgment motion

presents only a single issue of law: namely, whether Randall's state law claims are preempted by the

Medical Device Amendments ("MDA") to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a). 

Medtronic argues that such issue requires the presiding judge to review applicable caselaw and interpret the

statute and contends that no factual issues are presented by the motion. As a result, no discovery,

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

Medtronic claims, is necessary and the case can be streamlined by resolving all issues of law in the action as

soon as possible. Medtronic also notes that Randall has moved to remand this action to state court and

correctly points out that, if that motion is granted, no discovery need occur before this Court.

Randall responds that discovery is necessary to show Medtronic knew it was selling a defective

product but, nonetheless, concealed the defect from everyone, including the general public, physicians, and

the FDA, to protect its reputation and corporate profits. The Supreme Court, in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs'

Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 343 (2001), held that claims for fraud on the FDA are preempted. It did

not extend that holding to claims based on misrepresentations to the general public. Id.; see also, Gilleon v.

Medtronic, Inc., 2002 WL 31300694, *6 (N.D. Cal. 2002). In this instance, however, Randall has not

pled a claim for misrepresentation or fraud. Rather, his complaint seeks relief against Medtronic for strict

liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. Randall fails to establish any link

between the question of preemption of these claims and his purported need for discovery. Similarly, he

does not explain how discovery would be necessary either to establish any jurisdictional issues raised in his

own motion to remand or to oppose Medtronic's alternate motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Although Randall claims that the declarations submitted by Medtronic in support of the motion for

summary judgment raise factual issues entitling him to discovery, it appears that the declarations simply set

forth the chain of events surrounding the FDA approval process. While Randall may disagree with certain

recitations contained in those declarations, he has failed to establish how or why any alleged discrepancies

are relevant to the legal issue of preemption presented in the pending motion for summary judgment. 

Rather, the discovery identified by Randall relates solely to alleged misrepresentations by Medtronic which,

even if true, fails to address the legal issue of whether or not his state law claims are preempted. United

Investor Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (preemption presents

substantive legal question). 

At oral argument, Randall's counsel presented the further argument that the federal and state

approval requirements for the ICDs are, in this instance, identical and, therefore, operate to defeat

preemption. What remains missing, however, is any demonstration of how discovery is needed to cast light

on that issue of law. Accordingly, considerations of both judicial economy and the financial interests of the

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

parties favor a stay of discovery in this action until the presiding judge determines the motions scheduled for

hearing on December 12, 2005. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the motion to stay discovery in this action is granted. The parties

need not meet and confer to discuss a discovery plan until the presiding judge has ruled on the motions

presently set to be heard on December 12, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 10/19/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Brian J. Devine bdevine@seegersalvas.com, kseeger@seegersalvas.com 

Alan D. Hamilton ahamilto@skadden.com, 

Raoul D. Kennedy rkennedy@skadden.com, pleider@skadden.com 

Cyrus A. Tabari ctabari@smtlaw.com, jnicholls@smtlaw.com 

Dated: 10/19/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03707-JW Document 40 Filed 10/19/05 Page 6 of 6