Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05682/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05682-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JILLIAN NAVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED ACTIONS.

This order pertains to: ALL ACTIONS

Case No. 19-cv-05675-JST 

ORDER RE MEDICAL LITERATURE 

DISCOVERY

These related product liability cases were remanded to the undersigned from the 

multidistrict litigation proceeding known as In re Bard IVC Filter Products Liability Litigation, 

MDL 2641, pending in the District of Arizona. The cases concern a medical device called an 

inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filter manufactured by defendant C.R. Bard, Inc. Plaintiffs received 

implants of Bard IVC filters and claim they are defective and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer 

serious injury or death. 

Now before the Court is a discovery dispute between the parties: whether Plaintiffs should 

be able to take additional, non-case specific discovery regarding medical literature published since 

discovery closed in the MDL. Specifically, Plaintiffs “seek general discovery of Bard’s 

knowledge of and reaction to medical studies and research regarding the safety and efficacy of 

Bard’s and other manufacturers’ IVC filters that have been published since discovery closed in the 

MDL on February 3, 2017.” Svedise v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-5680, ECF No. 31 at 8. 

Case 4:19-cv-05682-JST Document 48 Filed 01/16/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiffs focus on an article entitled “A Multicenter Trial of Vena Cava Filters in Severely Injured

Patients” published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2019. 

Defendants oppose the request, arguing that “[a]ll discovery about general liability was 

completed in the MDL.” Id. at 9. They point to Judge Campbell’s Suggestion of Remand and 

Transfer Order, in which he states: 

Because all general fact and expert discovery has been completed in 

this MDL, the courts receiving these cases need not be concerned 

with facilitating general expert, corporate, and third-party discovery. 

ECF No. 5 at 31-32. 

The Court need not analyze the issue exhaustively because the parties have already 

litigated it in numerous transferor courts. See Laloli v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-5679, ECF 

No. 42-4 at 2 (listing transferor courts which have considered the issue). Suffice it to say that this 

Court is persuaded by the vast majority of those courts, which concluded that Judge Campbell’s 

order means what it says and that there is no good cause to permit further non-case specific 

discovery on this topic. Accordingly, the Court will not allow the requested discovery, except that 

any new medical literature published since 2017 may be added to the reliance lists of general 

experts, and the general experts may expand their trial testimony from the MDL to include a 

discussion of such new literature. See, e.g., Caldera v. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. CV19-4266 

PHX DGC (D. Ariz.), ECF No. 8 at 1. 

The Court now having ruled on the issues currently in dispute between the parties, they are 

ordered to submit, by January 23, 2020, a proposed scheduling order that includes specific dates. 

See ECF No. 37 at 6-7. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05682-JST Document 48 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2