Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06986/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06986-0/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,

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND 

TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

This multidistrict litigation proceeding (“MDL”) involves personal injury cases 

brought against Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

(collectively, “Bard”). Bard manufactures and markets medical devices, including 

inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters. The MDL Plaintiffs have received implants of Bard 

IVC filters and claim they are defective and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious injury 

or death.

The MDL was transferred to this Court in August 2015 when 22 cases had been 

filed. Doc. 1. More than 8,000 cases had been filed when the MDL closed on May 31, 

2019. Docs. 18079, 18128. Thousands of cases pending in the MDL have settled in 

principle or are near settlement. See Docs. 16343, 19445, 19798. The remaining cases

no longer benefit from centralized proceedings.

On August 20, 2019, the Court suggested the remand of 35 cases that were

transferred to this MDL by the United States Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation 

(the “Panel”). Doc. 19899 at 2-3, 34-35. The Court transferred more than 500 cases that 

were directly filed in the MDL to appropriate districts. Id. at 3-6, 36-59.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 85
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

In updated reports on the settlement status of cases, the parties identify more than 

300 cases that are no longer likely to settle. Docs. 20061, 20623. An additional 100 

cases that were recently served on Defendants are also unlikely to settle. Doc. 20209. 

These cases are now subject to remand or transfer.

The case listed on Schedule A should be remanded to the transferor court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). See Doc. 20061-1. The Court therefore provides this Suggestion 

of Remand to the Panel. The cases listed on Schedule B, which were directly filed in this

MDL, will be transferred to appropriate districts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See

Docs. 20061-2, 20209-2, 20623 at 2. To assist the courts that receive these cases, this 

order will describe events that have taken place in the MDL. A copy of this order, along 

with the case files and materials, will be available to courts after remand or transfer. The 

two cases listed on Schedule C will be unconsolidated from the MDL and will remain in 

the District of Arizona.

I. Suggestion of Remand.

A. Remand Standard.

The power to remand MDL cases rests solely with the Panel. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a); 

see Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998). 

The Panel typically relies on the transferee court to suggest when remand is appropriate. 

See J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b)(i); In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 

No. 07-MD-1840-KHV, 2012 WL 1963350, at *1 (D. Kan. May 30, 2012). Indeed, the 

Panel “is reluctant to order a remand absent the suggestion of the transferee judge[.]” 

J.P.M.L. Rule 10.3(a); see In re Regions Morgan Keegan Sec., Derivative & ERISA 

Litig., No. 2:09-md-2009-SHM, 2013 WL 5614285, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2013). 

The transferee court may suggest remand when a case is “ready for trial, or . . . would no 

longer benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 

In re Multi-Piece Rim Prods. Liab. Litig., 464 F. Supp. 969, 975 (J.P.M.L. 1979); see 

In re TMJ Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 872 F. Supp. 1019, 1038 (D. Minn. 1995).

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 85
3

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

B. The Panel Should Remand the Case Listed on Schedule A.

The primary purposes of this MDL – coordinated pretrial discovery and resolution 

of common issues – have been fulfilled. All common fact and expert discovery has been 

completed. The Court has also resolved many Daubert motions and Defendants’ 

summary judgment motion based on preemption, as well as other summary judgment and 

in limine motions in the bellwether cases. Three bellwether jury trials were held, and the 

parties prepared for a fourth that settled on the eve of trial. 

The MDL case listed on Schedule A is not likely to settle soon and no longer 

benefits from centralized proceedings. The remaining case-specific issues are best left to 

the transferor court to resolve. The Court therefore suggests that the Panel remand the 

case on Schedule A to the transferor court – the Southern District of Indiana – for further 

proceedings. See Doc. 20061-1; In re TMJ Implants, 872 F. Supp. at 1038 (suggesting 

remand of cases that no longer benefited from consolidated pretrial proceedings).

II. Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

A. Transfer Standard.

Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in 

the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 

division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all 

parties have consented.”

B. The Direct-Filed Cases Listed on Schedule B Will Be Transferred.

Not all MDL cases were transferred to the Court by the Panel. Pursuant to Case 

Management Order No. 4 (“CMO 4”), many cases were filed directly in the MDL 

through use of a short form complaint. Doc. 363 at 3 (as amended by Docs. 1108, 1485). 

Plaintiffs were required to identify in the short form complaint the district where venue 

would be proper absent direct filing in the MDL. See id. at 7. CMO 4 provides that, 

upon the MDL’s closure, each pending direct-filed case shall be transferred to the district 

identified in the short form complaint. Id. at 3.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 3 of 85
4

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

Pursuant to § 1404(a), the Court will transfer the cases listed on Schedule B to the 

districts identified in the short form complaints. See Doc. 20061-2; In re Biomet M2a 

Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:12-MD-2391, 2018 WL 7683307, at *1 

(N.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2018) (transferring cases under § 1404(a) where they would “no 

longer benefit from centralized proceedings[] and the remaining case-specific issues are 

best left to decision by the courts that will try the cases”). Defendants’ right to challenge 

venue and personal jurisdiction upon transfer is preserved. See Doc. 19899 at 4-6.

III. The MDL Proceedings.

A summary of the MDL proceedings is provided below to assist courts on remand, 

if ordered by the Panel, and courts receiving transfers under § 1404(a). CMOs, discovery

orders, and other significant rulings are listed in Exhibit 1. The status of the remaining

case-specific discovery and other pretrial issues in individual cases should be addressed 

by the courts receiving the cases on remand or transfer.

A. Plaintiffs’ Claims and the Pleadings.

The IVC is a large vein that returns blood to the heart from the lower body. An 

IVC filter is a small device implanted in the IVC to catch blood clots before they reach 

the heart and lungs. This MDL involves multiple versions of Bard’s retrievable IVC 

filters – the Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, and Denali. These filters are 

umbrella-shaped devices that have multiple limbs fanning out from a cone-shaped head. 

The limbs consist of legs with hooks that attach to the IVC wall and curved arms to catch 

or break up blood clots. Each of these filters is a variation of its predecessor.1

The MDL Plaintiffs allege that Bard filters are more dangerous than other IVC

filters because they have higher risks of tilting, perforating the IVC, or fracturing and 

migrating to vital organs. Plaintiffs further allege that Bard failed to warn patients and 

 

1

In early 2019, Defendants moved to expand the scope of the MDL to include 

cases concerning Bard’s Simon Nitinol Filter (“SNF”), a permanent device that predated 

the other filters in this litigation. The Panel denied the motion as moot because more 

than 80 SNF cases already had been filed in the MDL. None of the SNF cases are subject 

to this order.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 4 of 85
5

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

physicians about these higher risks. Defendants dispute these allegations, contending

that Bard filters are safe and effective, that their complication rates are low and

comparable to those of other IVC filters, and that the medical community is aware of the

risks associated with IVC filters.

CMO 2, entered October 30, 2015, required the creation of a master complaint, a 

master answer, and templates of short-form complaints and answers. Doc. 249 at 6. The 

master complaint and answer were filed December 12, 2015. Docs. 364, 366. They are 

the operative pleadings for most of the cases in this MDL.

The master complaint gives notice, pursuant to Rule 8, of the allegations that 

Plaintiffs assert generally. The master complaint contains seventeen state law claims: 

manufacturing defect (Counts I and V); failure to warn (Counts II and VII); design defect 

(Counts III and IV); failure to recall (Count VI); misrepresentation (Counts VIII

and XII); negligence per se (Count IX); breach of warranty (Counts X and XI); 

concealment (Count XIII); consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices (Count XIV); 

loss of consortium (Count XV); and wrongful death and survival (Counts XVI and XVII). 

Doc. 364 at 34-63. Plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 63.

Plaintiff-specific allegations are contained in individual short-form complaints or 

certain complaints served on Defendants before the filing of the master complaint. See 

Docs. 249, 363, 365. Plaintiffs also provided Defendants with profile forms and fact 

sheets that describe their individual claims and conditions. See Doc. 365.

B. Case Management Orders.

The primary orders governing pretrial management of this MDL are a series 

of CMOs, along with certain amendments. To date, the Court has issued 45 CMOs. 

These orders are discussed below and can be found on this District’s website at 

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/case-info/bard.

C. Lead Counsel.

CMO 1, entered October 30, 2015, appointed Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for 

Plaintiffs (“Lead Counsel”) to manage the litigation on behalf of Plaintiffs, and set out 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 5 of 85
6

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 responsibilities of Lead Counsel. Doc. 248. Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel has changed 

since the inception of the MDL. Mr. Ramon Lopez, of Lopez McHugh, LLP, in Newport 

Beach, California, and Mr. Mark O’Connor, of Beus Gilbert PLLC, in Phoenix, Arizona,

are now Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. Doc. 5285. Mr. Richard North of Nelson Mullins 

Riley & Scarborough, LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, is Defendants’ Lead Counsel.

D. Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and Common Benefits Fund.

CMO 1 directed the selection and appointment of a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee 

(“PSC”) to assist in the coordination of pretrial activities and trial planning. Plaintiffs’ 

Lead Counsel and the PSC together form the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Counsel (“PLC”). 

The PLC assists all Plaintiffs in the MDL by overseeing discovery, appearing in court, 

attending status conferences, and preparing motions and responses regarding case-wide 

discovery matters. CMO 1 has been amended to select and appoint a Plaintiffs’ 

Executive Committee (“PEC”) to assist Lead Counsel in the administration, organization,

and strategic decisions of the PLC. Doc. 4016. The configuration of the PSC has 

changed during the course of the litigation. See Docs. 248, 4016, 5285.

CMO 6, entered December 18, 2015, set forth rules, policies, procedures, and 

guidelines for fees and expenses incurred by attorneys acting for the common benefit of 

all MDL Plaintiffs. Doc. 372. In May 2019, the Court increased the common benefit 

attorneys’ fees assessment from 6% to 8%, but declined to increase the 3% assessment 

for costs. Doc. 18038. 

Upon remand or transfer, individual Plaintiffs likely will be represented by their 

own counsel – the attorney or attorneys who filed their original complaint. Plaintiffs’ 

Lead Counsel, the PSC, the PLC, and the PEC were tasked with managing the MDL for 

Plaintiffs, not the individual cases on remand or transfer.

E. Status Conferences.

Since the inception of the MDL, the Court has held regular status conferences with 

Lead Counsel for the parties to discuss issues related to the litigation. The initial case 

management conference was held in October 2015. Doc. 246. Deadlines were set for, 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 6 of 85
7

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

among other things, the filing of master and short-form pleadings, profile forms, a 

proposed protective order (including Rule 502 provisions), a proposed protocol

governing the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”), as well as

deadlines to complete first-phase MDL discovery and address privilege log issues. 

Doc. 249. Thereafter, the Court held periodic status conferences to ensure that the parties 

were on task and to address routine discovery issues and disputes. In addition to the 

status conferences, the Court conducted telephone hearings to address time-sensitive 

issues, as well as numerous additional conferences to consider various matters such as 

dispositive motions and general case management issues.

F. Discovery.

1. General Fact Discovery.

Prior to the establishment of this MDL, Plaintiffs’ counsel had conducted 

substantial discovery against Bard concerning all aspects of Bard IVC filters, including 

the design, testing, manufacturing, marketing, labeling, and post-market surveillance of 

the devices. Bard produced numerous documents and ESI and responded to thousands of 

written discovery requests, and more than 80 corporate witness depositions were taken. 

The pre-MDL fact discovery was made available by Bard to all Plaintiffs in the MDL. 

CMO 8 established a procedure concerning re-deposing witnesses in the MDL. 

Doc. 519. CMO 14 established deposition protocols generally. Doc. 2239. The Court 

allowed additional depositions of a handful of corporate witnesses that had been 

previously deposed, as well as numerous depositions of other Bard corporate witnesses, 

including several Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Docs. 3685, 4311. CMO 9 governed the 

production of ESI and hard-copy documents. Doc. 1259.

Discovery in the MDL was separated into phases. The parties completed the first 

phase of MDL discovery in early 2016. Doc. 519. The first phase included production of 

documents related to an FDA inspection and warning letter to Bard, an updated 

production of complaint and adverse event files, and an updated version of Bard’s 

complaint database relating to IVC filters. Doc. 249. Plaintiffs also conducted a Rule 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 7 of 85
8

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

30(b)(6) deposition concerning the FDA inspection and warning letter, and a deposition 

of corporate witness Kay Fuller.

The parties completed the second phase of fact discovery in February 2017. CMO 

8 set deadlines for the second phase, which included all common fact and expert issues in 

the MDL, but not case-specific issues to be resolved after remand or transfer. Docs. 249, 

519. Second-phase discovery included extensive additional discovery related to Bard’s 

system architecture for ESI, Bard’s ESI collection efforts, ESI relating to Bard’s IVC 

filters, and Bard’s national and regional sales and marketing practices. Plaintiffs also 

deposed two corporate witnesses in connection with Kay Fuller’s allegations that a 

submission to the FDA regarding the Recovery filter did not bear her original signature.

Doc. 1319 (CMO 10). Plaintiffs deposed additional corporate witnesses concerning the 

FDA inspections and warning letter. Id.

Bard also produced discovery regarding the sales and marketing materials related 

to the SNF, documents comparing filter performance and failure rates to the SNF, and 

internal and regulatory communications relating to the SNF. Docs. 1319, 10489. The 

Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to obtain ESI discovery from Bard’s overseas operations. 

Doc. 3398. The Court also denied Defendants’ request to discover communications 

between Plaintiffs’ counsel and NBC news related to stories about the products at issue in 

this litigation, and third-party financing that may be in place with respect to MDL 

Plaintiffs. Docs. 3313, 3314. Plaintiffs were required to produce communications 

between Plaintiffs and the FDA related to the FDA warning letter, but the Court denied 

Defendants’ request to depose Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding these communications. 

Docs. 3312, 4339. Defendants also produced punitive damages discovery, and Plaintiffs 

conducted a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition related to Bard’s net worth.

All common fact discovery has now been completed except for preservation 

depositions for certain witnesses who will not be traveling to testify live at the trials of 

remanded and transferred cases. The parties are engaged in a meet and confer process as 

to these depositions and shall complete them by December 1, 2019. See Doc. 16343 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 8 of 85
9

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

(CMO 42, as amended by Doc. 19959). Thus, courts receiving these cases need not be 

concerned with facilitating general fact discovery on remand or transfer.

2. Case-Specific Discovery.

CMO 5 governed initial case-specific discovery and required the parties to 

exchange abbreviated profile forms. Doc. 365 (as amended by Doc. 927). Plaintiffs were 

required to provide Defendants with a Plaintiff profile form (“PPF”) that described

individual conditions and claims. Id. at 5-9. Upon receipt of a substantially complete 

PPF, Defendants were required to provide the individual Plaintiff with a Defendants’ 

profile form (“DPF”) that disclosed information and documents concerning Defendants’ 

contacts and relationship with Plaintiff’s physicians, tracking and reporting of Plaintiff’s 

claims, and certain manufacturing related information for Plaintiff’s filter. Id. at 12-14. 

Completed profile forms were considered interrogatory answers under Rule 33 or 

responses to requests for production under Rule 34, and were governed by the standards 

applicable to written discovery under Rules 26 through 37. Id. at 2-3. CMO 5 also set 

deadlines and procedures for resolving any purported deficiencies with the parties’ 

profile forms, and for dismissal of cases that did not provide substantially completed 

profile forms. Id. at 2.2

Further discovery was conducted in a group of 48 cases (“Group 1”) selected for 

consideration in the bellwether trial process from the pool of cases filed and properly 

served on Defendants in the MDL as of April 1, 2016 (“Initial Plaintiff Pool”). 

Docs. 1662, 3214, 4311 (CMOs 11, 15, 19). Plaintiffs in Group 1 were required to 

provide Defendants with a Plaintiff fact sheet (“PFS”) that described their individual 

conditions and claims in greater detail, and provided detailed disclosures concerning their 

individual background, medical history, insurance, fact witnesses, prior claims, and 

relevant documents and records authorizations. Docs. 1153-1, 1662 at 3. 

 

2 The Court has dismissed certain cases where Plaintiffs failed to provide complete 

PPFs. See Docs. 19874, 20667

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 9 of 85
10

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

Upon receipt of a PFS, Defendants were required to provide the individual 

Plaintiff with a Defendants fact sheet (“DFS”) that disclosed in greater detail information 

concerning Defendants’ contacts and relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s physicians, or 

anyone on behalf of Plaintiff, Defendants’ tracking and reporting of Plaintiff’s claims, 

sales and marketing information for the implanting facility, manufacturing information 

for Plaintiff’s filter, and other relevant documents. Docs. 1153-2, 1662 at 3. Completed 

fact sheets were considered interrogatory answers under Rule 33 or responses to requests 

for production under Rule 34, and were governed by the standards applicable to written 

discovery under Rules 26 through 37. Doc. 1662 at 3. CMO 11 set deadlines and 

procedures for resolving any purported deficiencies with the parties’ fact sheets. Id. at 2, 

4-5. CMO 12 governed records discovery for Group 1. Doc. 1663. The parties agreed to 

use The Marker Group to collect medical, insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription, 

Social Security, workers’ compensation, and employment records for individual plaintiffs 

from third-parties designated as custodians for such records in the PFS. Id. at 1. 

From Group 1, twelve cases were selected for further consideration as bellwether 

cases (“Discovery Group 1”). Docs. 1662, 3685, 4311 (CMOs 11, 18, 19). CMO 20 set 

deadlines for preliminary case-specific discovery in that group. Doc. 4335. Pursuant to 

the protocols set in CMOs 14 and 21, the parties were permitted to depose each Plaintiff, 

his or her spouse or a significant family member, the implanting physician, an additional 

treating physician, and either a Bard sales representative or supervisor. Docs. 2239, 4866 

at 1-2. From Discovery Group 1, six Plaintiffs were selected for potential bellwether 

trials and further case-specific discovery (“Bellwether Group 1”). Docs. 1662, 3685, 

4311, 5770, 11659 (CMOs 11, 18, 19, 23, and 34). 

Except for the 48 cases in Group 1, the parties did not conduct case-specific fact 

discovery for the cases listed on Schedules A and B during the MDL proceedings, other 

than exchanging abbreviated profile forms. The Court concluded that any additional 

case-specific discovery in these cases should await their remand or transfer. Thus, courts 

receiving these cases should set a schedule for the completion of case-specific discovery.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 10 of 85
11

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. Expert Discovery.

CMO 8 governed expert disclosures and discovery. Doc. 519. The parties

designated general experts in all MDL cases and case-specific experts in individual

bellwether cases. General expert discovery closed July 14, 2017. Doc. 3685 (CMO 18). 

The parties did not conduct case-specific expert discovery for the cases listed on 

Schedules A and B during the MDL proceedings. The Court concluded that case-specific 

expert discovery in these cases should await their remand or transfer. Thus, courts 

receiving these cases should set a schedule for the completion of case-specific expert 

discovery.

4. Privileged Materials.

CMO 2 required Defendants to produce privilege logs in compliance with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 249. The parties were then required to engage in 

an informal privilege log meet and confer process to resolve any privilege disputes.

Defendants produced several privilege logs identifying documents withheld pursuant to 

the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and other privileges. The parties 

regularly met and conferred regarding the privilege logs and engaged in negotiations 

regarding certain entries identified by Plaintiffs. As part of that meet and confer process, 

Defendants provided Plaintiffs with a small number of these identified items for 

inspection and, in some cases, withdrew certain claims of attorney-client privilege and 

produced the previously withheld items. 

CMO 3 governed the non-waiver of any privilege or work-product protection in 

this MDL, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), by Defendants’ disclosure or 

production of documents on its privilege logs as part of the meet and confer process. 

Doc. 314.

In late 2015, Plaintiffs challenged a substantial number of documents on 

Defendants’ privilege log. The parties engaged in an extensive meet and confer process, 

and Defendants produced certain documents pursuant to the Rule 502(d) order. See id.

Plaintiffs moved to compel production of 133 disputed documents. The Court granted 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 11 of 85
12

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 motion in part. Doc. 2813. The parties identified several categories of disputed 

documents and provided sample documents for in camera review. The Court denied 

Plaintiffs’ motion with respect to seven of eight categories of documents and found only 

one of the sample documents in one of the categories to contain unprivileged portions 

that should be produced. The Court found all other documents protected by the attorneyclient privilege or work product doctrine. The Court directed the parties to use this ruling 

as a guide to resolve remaining privilege disputes.

Since this ruling, there have been no further challenges to Defendants’ privilege 

logs. Defendants continued to provide updated privilege logs throughout the discovery 

process, and the parties met and conferred to resolve privilege disputes. Privilege issues 

should not be a concern for courts that receive these cases.

5. Protective Order and Confidentiality.

A stipulated protective order governing the designation, handling, use, and 

disclosure of confidential discovery materials was entered in November 2015. Doc. 269. 

CMO 7, entered January 5, 2016, governed redactions of material from additional 

adverse event reports, complaint files, and related documents in accordance with the 

Health Insurance Portability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and under 21 C.F.R. § 20.63(f). 

Doc. 401.

In September 2016, to expedite production of ESI, the parties agreed to a primarily 

“no-eyes-on” document production as to relevancy while still performing a privilege 

review for this expedited ESI document production. CMO 17 (Doc. 3372) modified the 

protections and requirements in the stipulated protective order (Doc. 269) and CMO 7 

(Doc. 401) for ESI produced pursuant to this process. CMO 17 was amended in 

November 2016. Doc. 4015.

Defendants filed a motion to seal certain trial exhibits at the conclusion of the first 

bellwether trial. Doc. 11010. The Court denied this motion and Defendants’ subsequent 

motion for reconsideration. Docs. 11642, 11766, 12069. Defendants also filed a motion 

to enforce the protective order for the second and third bellwether trials collectively. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 12 of 85
13

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

Doc. 13126. This motion was denied. Doc. 14446. A list of exhibits admitted at the 

bellwether trials (excluding case-specific medical records) and documents deemed no 

longer subject to the protective order are attached as Exhibit 2. 

G. Bellwether Cases and Trials.

Six Plaintiffs were selected for potential bellwether trials. Docs. 5770, 11659 

(CMOs 23, 34). The Court held three bellwether trials: Booker, No. CV-16-00474, 

Jones, No. CV-16-00782, and Hyde, No. CV-16-00893. The Court granted summary 

judgment in one of the bellwether cases, Kruse, No. CV-15-01634, and removed another 

from the bellwether trial schedule at the request of Plaintiffs, Mulkey, No. CV-16-00853. 

Docs. 12202, 13329. The final bellwether case, Tinlin, No. CV-16-00263, settled shortly 

before trial in May 2019. The Court determined that further bellwether trials were not 

necessary. Docs. 12853, 13329 (CMOs 38, 40).

1. Booker, No. CV-16-00474.

The first bellwether trial concerned Plaintiff Sherr-Una Booker and involved a 

Bard G2 filter. The filter had tilted, migrated, and fractured. Plaintiff required open 

heart surgery to remove the fractured limbs and repair heart damage caused by a 

percutaneous removal attempt. Plaintiff withdrew her breach of warranty claims before 

Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on the claims for manufacturing defects, failure to recall, 

misrepresentation, negligence per se, and breach of warranty. Docs. 8873, 8874. The 

remaining claims for failure to warn, design defect, and punitive damages were tried to a 

jury over a three-week period in March 2018.

The jury found for Plaintiff Booker on her negligent failure-to-warn claim, and in 

favor of Defendants on the design defect and strict liability failure-to-warn claims. 

Doc. 10595. The jury returned a verdict of $2 million in compensatory damages (of 

which $1.6 million was attributed to Defendants after apportionment of fault) and 

$2 million in punitive damages. Id.; Doc. 10596. The Court denied Defendants’ motions

for judgment as a matter of law and a new-trial. Docs. 10879, 11598. Defendants have 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 13 of 85
14

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

appealed. Docs. 11934, 11953. Plaintiff filed and later dismissed with prejudice a crossappeal. Docs. 12070, 17916.

2. Jones, No. CV-16-00782.

The second bellwether trial concerned Plaintiff Doris Jones and involved a Bard 

Eclipse filter. Plaintiffs withdrew the manufacturing defect, failure to recall, and breach 

of warranty claims. The Court granted summary judgment on the misrepresentation, 

negligence per se, and unfair trade practices claims. Doc. 10404. The remaining claims 

for failure to warn, design defect, and punitive damages were tried to a jury over a threeweek period in May 2018. The jury returned a defense verdict. Doc. 11350. Plaintiff 

filed a motion to contact the jurors, which was denied. Docs. 11663, 12068. Plaintiff’s 

appeal of the court’s rulings excluding cephalad migration death evidence is pending. 

Docs. 12057, 12071.

3. Kruse, No. CV-15-01634.

Plaintiff Carol Kruse’s case was set for trial in September 2018. The Court 

granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion on statute of limitations grounds. 

Doc. 12202.

4. Hyde, No. CV-16-00893.

The third bellwether trial concerned Plaintiff Lisa Hyde and involved either a Bard 

G2X or Eclipse filter (the exact model was in dispute). Ms. Hyde’s case was moved to 

the September 2018 bellwether slot in lieu of Ms. Kruse’s case. Doc. 11867. Plaintiffs 

withdrew their claims for manufacturing defect and breach of express warranty. The 

Court granted summary judgment on the claims for breach of implied warranty, failure to 

warn, failure to recall, misrepresentation, concealment, and fraud. Doc. 12007. The 

Court also entered judgment in favor of Defendants on the negligence per se claim after 

concluding that it was impliedly preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 337(a). Doc. 12589. The 

remaining claims for design defect, loss of consortium, and punitive damages were tried 

to a jury over three weeks in September 2018. After the close of Plaintiffs’ evidence, the 

Court granted in part Defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 14 of 85
15

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

future damages for any cardiac arrhythmia Ms. Hyde may experience, but denied the 

motion as to the remaining claims. Doc. 12805. The jury returned a defense verdict. 

Doc. 12891. Plaintiff has appealed. Docs. 13465, 13480.

5. Mulkey, No. CV-16-00853.

Plaintiff Debra Mulkey’s case involved an Eclipse filter and was set for trial in 

February 2019. Before trial, Plaintiffs asked the Court to remove the Mulkey case from 

the bellwether trial schedule because it was similar to the Jones and Hyde cases and 

would not provide meaningful information to the parties. Doc. 12990. The Court 

granted the motion. Doc. 13329. 

6. Tinlin, No. CV-16-00263.

The final bellwether trial concerned Plaintiff Debra Tinlin and involved a Bard 

Recovery filter. Plaintiffs withdrew their claims for manufacturing defect, failure to 

recall, negligence per se, and breach of warranty. The Court granted summary judgment 

on the misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices claims. Doc. 17008. The 

remaining claims for failure to warn, design defect, concealment, loss of consortium, and 

punitive damages were scheduled for trial in May 2019, but the case settled.

H. Key Legal and Evidentiary Rulings.

The Court has made many rulings in this MDL that could affect the remanded and

transferred cases. The Court provides the following summary of key legal and 

evidentiary rulings to assist the courts that receive these cases.

1. Medical Monitoring Class Action Ruling.

In May 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a medical monitoring class action that was 

consolidated with the MDL. See Barraza v. C. R. Bard, Inc., No. CV-16-01374-PHXDCG (D. Ariz. May 5, 2015). The Barraza Plaintiffs moved for class certification for 

medical monitoring relief on behalf of themselves and classes of individuals who have 

been implanted with a Bard IVC filter, have not had that filter removed, and have not 

filed a claim or lawsuit for personal injury related to the filter. Id., Doc. 54. The Court 

declined to certify the class. Id., Doc. 95. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 15 of 85
16

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 class certification motion recognized that only 16 states permit claims for 

medical monitoring. The Court concluded that the classes could not be certified under 

Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues would predominate. Id. at 20-21. The Court 

further concluded that the class could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because the 

medical monitoring relief primarily constituted monetary rather than injunctive relief, and 

the class claims were not sufficiently cohesive to permit binding class-wide relief. Id. 

at 21-32. Finally, the Court concluded that typicality under Rule 23(a)(3) had not been 

established. Id. at 32-34. The Barazza Plaintiffs dismissed their claims without 

prejudice. Docs. 106, 107. No appeal has been filed.

2. Federal Preemption Ruling.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ state law 

claims are expressly preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (“MDA”), 

21 U.S.C. § 360 et seq., and impliedly preempted by the MDA under the Supreme 

Court’s conflict preemption principles. Doc. 5396. The Court denied the motion. 

Doc. 8872. Defendants have appealed this ruling. Docs. 11934, 11953.

The MDA curtails state regulation of medical devices through a provision that 

preempts state requirements that differ from or add to federal requirements. 21 U.S.C. 

§ 360k. The Bard IVC filters at issue in this litigation were cleared for market by the 

FDA through section “510k” review, which focuses primarily on equivalence rather than 

safety and effectiveness. See § 360c(f)(1)(A). 

The Supreme Court in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), held that 

§ 360k does not preempt state law claims directed at medical devices cleared through 

the 510(k) process because substantial equivalence review places no federal requirements 

on a device. Id. at 492-94. Lohr also noted that the “510(k) process is focused on 

equivalence, not safety.” Id. at 493 (emphasis in original). Although the Safe Medical 

Devices Act of 1990 (“SMDA”), Pub. L. 101-629, injected safety and effectiveness 

considerations into 510(k) review, it did so only comparatively. The Court found that 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 16 of 85
17

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

Lohr remains good law and that clearance of a product under 510(k) generally does not 

preempt state common law claims. Doc. 8872 at 12-14.

The Court further found that Defendants failed to show that the 510(k) reviews for 

Bard IVC filters imposed device-specific requirements as needed for preemption under 

§ 360k. Id. at 14-20. Even if device-specific federal requirements could be ascertained, 

Defendants made no showing that any particular state law claim is expressly preempted 

by federal requirements. Id. at 21-22.

The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ state law claims are not impliedly preempted 

because Defendants failed to show that it is impossible to do under federal law what the 

state laws require. Id. at 22-24. Defendants are pursuing their preemption arguments in 

the Booker appeal.

3. The Lehmann Report Privilege and Work Product Rulings.

The Court granted Defendants’ motion for a protective order to prevent Plaintiffs 

from using a December 15, 2004 report of Dr. John Lehmann. Doc. 699. Dr. Lehmann 

provided various consulting services to Bard at different times. Following Bard’s receipt 

of potential product liability claims involving the Recovery filter, Bard’s legal 

department retained Dr. Lehmann in November 2004 to provide an assessment of the 

risks associated with the Recovery filter and the extent of Bard’s legal exposure. 

Dr. Lehmann prepared a written report of his findings at the request of the legal 

department and in anticipation of litigation. The Court found the report to be protected 

from disclosure by the work product doctrine. Id. at 4-12. The Court further found that 

Plaintiffs had not shown a substantial need for the report or undue hardship if the report 

was not disclosed. Id. at 13-15. The Court agreed with the parties that this ruling does 

not alter any prior rulings by transferor judges in specific cases. Id. at 22.

4. Daubert Rulings.

The Court has ruled on Daubert motions directed at general experts, and refers the 

remand and transfer courts to the following orders:

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 17 of 85
18

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

Daubert Order Doc. Nos.

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Thomas Kinney 9428, 10323

Plaintiffs’ Experts Drs. Scott Resnick, Robert 

Vogelzang, Kush Desai, and Robert Lewandowski

9432

Plaintiffs’ Experts Drs. David Kessler and Suzanne

Parisian

9433

Plaintiffs’ Experts Drs. Thomas Kinney, Anne Christine 

Roberts, and Sanjeeva Kalva

9434

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Mark Eisenberg 9770

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Derek Muehrcke 9771

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Darren Hurst 9772

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Rebecca Betensky 9773

Defendants’ Expert Dr. Clement Grassi 9991, 10230

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Robert McMeeking 10051, 16992

Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Robert Ritchie 10052

Plaintiffs’ Experts Drs. David Garcia and Michael Streiff 10072

Defendants’ Expert Dr. Christopher Morris 10230, 10231, 

17285

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 18 of 85
19

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. Motion in Limine Rulings.

a. FDA Evidence (Cisson Motion).

In the Booker bellwether trial, Plaintiffs sought to exclude, under Federal Rules of 

Evidence 402 and 403, evidence of the FDA’s 510(k) clearance of Bard IVC filters and 

the lack of FDA enforcement action against Bard. Doc. 9529. The Court denied the 

motion. Docs. 9881, 10323.

The Court found that under Georgia law, which applied in both the Booker and 

Jones bellwether cases, compliance with federal regulations may not render a 

manufacturer’s design choice immune from liability, but evidence of Bard’s compliance 

with the 510(k) process was nonetheless relevant to the design defect and punitive 

damages claims. Doc. 9881 at 3-4. The Court acknowledged concerns that FDA 

evidence might mislead the jury or result in a mini-trial. Id. at 5-6 (citing In re C.R. 

Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig. (Cisson), No. 2:10-CV-01224, 2013 WL 

3282926, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. June 27, 2013)). But the Court concluded that such concerns 

could adequately be addressed by efficient management of the evidence and adherence to 

the Court’s time limits for trial, and, if necessary, by a limiting instruction regarding the 

nature of the 510(k) process. Id. at 6-7.3

The Court noted that the absence of any evidence regarding the 510(k) process 

would run the risk of confusing the jury, as many of the relevant events in this litigation 

occurred in the context of the FDA’s 510(k) review of the Bard filters and are best 

understood in that context. Doc. 9881 at 7. Nor was the Court convinced that all FDA

references could adequately be removed from the evidence. Id.

The Court further concluded that it would not exclude evidence and arguments by 

Defendants that the FDA took no enforcement action against Bard with respect to the G2 

or Eclipse filters, or evidence regarding information Bard provided to the FDA in 

 

3 The Court did not find a limiting instruction necessary at the close of either the 

Booker or Jones trials. See Doc. 10694 at 9.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 19 of 85
20

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

connection with the 510(k) process. Docs. 10323 at 2-3 (Booker), 11011 at 4-5 (Jones). 

The Court found that the evidence was relevant to the negligent design and punitive 

damages claims under Georgia law. Id. The Court determined at trial that it had no basis 

to conclude that the FDA’s lack of enforcement was intended by the FDA as an assertion, 

and therefore declined to exclude the evidence as hearsay. Doc. 10568 at 87.

b. FDA Warning Letter.

Defendants moved to exclude evidence of the July 13, 2015 FDA warning letter 

issued to Bard. Doc. 9864 at 2-3. The Court granted the motion in part, excluding as 

irrelevant topics 1, 2, 4(a), 4(b), 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the warning letter. Docs. 10258 at 6-8 

(Booker), 10805 at 1 (Jones), 12736 (Hyde), 17401 at 10 (Tinlin). Topics 1 and 2 

concern the Recovery Cone retrieval system; Topic 4(a) concerns the filter cleaning 

process; and Topics 4(b), 5, 6, 7, and 8 concern the Denali Filter. The Court concluded 

that none of these topics was relevant to the issues in the bellwether cases involving a G2 

filter (Booker), an Eclipse filter (Jones), either a G2X or Eclipse filter (Hyde), and a 

Recovery filter (Tinlin). Id.

The Court deferred ruling on the relevance of topic 3 until trial in all bellwether 

cases. The Court found that topic 3, concerning Bard’s complaint handling and reporting 

of adverse events with respect to the G2 and Eclipse filters, as well as the adequacy of 

Bard’s evaluation of the root cause of the violations, was relevant to rebut the implication 

at trial that the FDA took no action with respect to Bard IVC filters. See Doc. 10693 

at 13-15; Doc. 11256. The Court concluded that the warning letter was admissible under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), and was not barred as hearsay. Doc. 10258 at 7. The 

Court further concluded that the probative value of topic 3 was not substantially 

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Bard under Rule 403. Id. The Court 

admitted the warning letter in redacted form during the three bellwether trials. See 

Docs. 10565, 11256, 12736. The Court noted that topic 3 included reference to the G2, 

the filter at issue in Booker, and reached similar conclusions in Jones and Hyde. 

Doc. 17401 at 11. The parties disputed the relevance of topic 3 in Tinlin because it did 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 20 of 85
21

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

not include reference to the Recovery, the filter at issue in Tinlin. Id. The Court did not 

decide this issue because the Tinlin case settled.

c. Recovery Cephalad Migration Death Evidence.

Defendants moved to exclude evidence of cephalad migration (i.e., migration of 

the filter toward the patient’s heart) by a Recovery filter resulting in patient death. The 

Court denied the motion for the Booker bellwether trial, which involved a G2 filter. 

Docs. 10258 at 4-5, 10323 at 4. Defendants have appealed this ruling. Docs. 11934, 

11953.

The Court granted the motion for the Jones bellwether trial, which involved an 

Eclipse filter, and denied Plaintiff’s requests for reconsideration of the ruling before and 

during the trial. See Docs. 10819, 10920, 11041, 11113, 11256, 11302; see also

Doc. 11409 at 94-96. Plaintiff Jones has appealed those rulings. Docs. 12057, 12071.

The Court granted the motion for the Hyde bellwether trial, which involved either 

a G2X or Eclipse filter. Doc. 12533 at 6-7. Plaintiff Hyde has appealed this ruling. 

Docs. 13465, 13480.

The Court denied Defendants’ motion for the Tinlin bellwether trial, which 

involved a Recovery filter. Doc. 17401 at 7-10. The Tinlin case settled before trial.

The Court concluded for purposes of the Booker bellwether trial that evidence of 

cephalad migrations by a Recovery filter resulting in patient death was necessary for the 

jury to understand the issues that prompted creation and design of the next-generation G2 

filter, and thus was relevant to Plaintiff’s design defect claims. Doc. 10323 at 4. In 

addition, because the Recovery filter was the predicate device for the G2 filter in 

Defendants’ 510(k) submission to the FDA, and Defendants asserted to the FDA that the 

G2 was as safe and effective as the Recovery, the Court concluded that the safety and 

effectiveness of the Recovery filter was at issue. Id. The Court was concerned, however, 

that too heavy an emphasis on deaths caused by cephalad migration of the Recovery 

filter – a kind of migration which did not occur in the G2 filter generally or the Booker 

case specifically – would result in unfair prejudice to Defendants that substantially 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 21 of 85
22

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

outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Id. Defendants did not object during 

trial that Plaintiffs were over-emphasizing the death evidence.

The Court initially concluded for purposes of the Jones bellwether trial, which 

involved an Eclipse filter, that evidence of cephalad migration deaths by the Recovery 

filter was inadmissible because it was only marginally relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and 

its marginal relevancy was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. See 

Docs. 10819, 10920, 11041, 11113, 11256, 11302. This is because cephalad migration 

did not continue in any significant degree beyond the Recovery filter; cephalad migration 

deaths all occurred before the Recovery was taken off the market in late 2005; Ms. Jones 

did not receive her Eclipse filter until 2010; the Recovery-related deaths said nothing 

about three of Ms. Jones’ four claims (strict liability design defect and the failure to warn 

claims); and instances of cephalad migration deaths were not substantially similar to 

complications experienced by Ms. Jones and therefore did not meet the Georgia standard 

for evidence on punitive damages. Docs. 10819, 11041.

The Court also found that deaths caused by a non-predicate device (the Recovery

was not the predicate device for the Eclipse in Defendants’ 510(k) submission), and by a 

form of migration that was eliminated years earlier, were of sufficiently limited probative 

value that their relevancy was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice 

because the death evidence may prompt a jury decision based on emotion. Id. The Court 

further concluded that Plaintiff Jones would not be seriously hampered in her ability to 

prove Recovery filter complications, testing, and design when references to cephalad 

migration deaths are removed. Doc. 11041. As a result, the Court held that such 

references should be redacted from evidence presented during the Jones trial.

The Court balanced this concern with the competing concern that it would be 

unfair for Defendants to present statistics about the Recovery filter and not allow 

Plaintiffs to present competing evidence that included Recovery deaths. See, e.g.,

Doc. 11391 at 12. Based on this concern, Plaintiffs argued at various points during the 

trial that Defendants had opened the door to presenting evidence about Recovery 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 22 of 85
23

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

cephalad migration deaths. The Court repeatedly made fact-specific determinations on 

this point, holding that even though Defendants presented some evidence that made the 

Recovery evidence more relevant, the danger of unfair prejudice continued to 

substantially outweigh the probative value of the cephalad migration death evidence. See

Docs. 11113, 11302; see also Doc. 11409 at 94-96.

The Court concluded for purposes of the Hyde bellwether trial, which involved 

either a G2X or Eclipse filter, that evidence of Recovery filter cephalad migration deaths 

should be excluded under Rule 403 for the reasons identified in the Jones bellwether trial. 

Doc. 12533 at 6-7. The Court concluded that this evidence had marginal relevance to 

Plaintiff’s claims because Ms. Hyde received either a G2X or Eclipse filter, two or three 

generations after the Recovery filter; Ms. Hyde did not receive her filter until 2011, more 

than five years after cephalad migration deaths stopped when the Recovery was taken off 

the market; the deaths did not show that G2X or Eclipse filters – which did not cause 

cephalad migration deaths – had design defects when they left Defendants’ control; nor 

did the cephalad migration deaths, which were eliminated by design changes in the G2, 

shed light on Defendants’ state of mind when designing and marketing the G2X and 

Eclipse filters. Id. at 7. 

The Court concluded for purposes of the Tinlin bellwether trial, which involved a 

Recovery filter, that Recovery deaths and Defendants’ knowledge of those deaths were 

relevant to Plaintiffs’ design defect claim under Wisconsin law because they went 

directly to the Recovery’s foreseeable risks of harm and whether it was unreasonably 

dangerous. Doc. 17401 at 7-8. The Court also concluded that the Recovery death 

evidence was relevant to Plaintiffs’ failure to warn and concealment claims because it 

was probative on the causation issue – that is, whether her treating physician would have 

selected a different filter for Ms. Tinlin had he been warned about the Recovery’s true 

risks, as Plaintiffs describe them. Id. at 8. In addition, because this evidence would be 

used to impeach expert testimony from Defendants that the Recovery filter was safe and 

effective, the Court concluded that substantial similarity was not required. Id. at 8-9. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 23 of 85
24

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 Court further concluded that the death evidence was relevant to Bard’s state of mind 

and to show the reprehensibility of its conduct for purposes of punitive damages. Id. 

at 9-10. The Court reached a different conclusion in the Jones and Hyde cases because 

cephalad migration deaths stopped when the Recovery was taken off the market in 2005, 

and the deaths shed little light on Defendants’ state of mind when marketing different, 

improved filters years later. Id. at 9 n.4. As noted, the Tinlin case settled before trial. 

d. SNF Evidence.

Plaintiffs sought to exclude evidence of complications associated with the SNF, 

claiming that they were barred from conducting relevant discovery into the design and 

testing of the SNF under CMO 10. Doc. 10487; see Doc. 1319. The Court denied 

Plaintiffs’ request. Doc. 10489. The Court did not agree that Plaintiffs were foreclosed 

from obtaining relevant evidence for rebuttal. The Court foreclosed this discovery 

because Plaintiffs did not contend that the SNF was defective. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs also 

had rebuttal evidence showing that reported failure rates for SNF were lower than 

Recovery and G2 failure rates. Id. The Court ultimately concluded it would not preclude 

Defendants from presenting its SNF evidence on the basis of a discovery ruling and 

permitted Plaintiffs to make appropriate evidentiary objections at trial. Id. at 3.

e. Use of Testimony of Withdrawn Experts.

Defendants sought to preclude Plaintiffs’ use at trial of the depositions of three 

defense experts – Drs. Moritz, Rogers, and Stein – who originally were retained by Bard 

but were later withdrawn in some or all cases. Doc. 10255 at 2. The Court denied the 

request in part. Doc. 10382. The Court found that Defendants failed to show that the 

depositions of these experts were inadmissible on hearsay grounds, but agreed that it 

would be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403 to disclose to the jury that the experts 

originally were retained by Bard. Id. at 2-3. The Court therefore concluded that 

Plaintiffs could use portions of the experts’ depositions that support Plaintiffs’ claims, but 

could not disclose to the jury that the experts originally were retained by Bard. Id. at 3. 

The Court was concerned about the presentation of cumulative evidence, and therefore 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 24 of 85
25

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

required Plaintiffs to show that no other expert of similar qualifications was available or 

that the unavailable expert had some unique testimony to contribute, before the

deposition of any withdrawn expert could be used at trial. Id. at 3-4.

f. Other Motion in Limine Rulings.

Other motion in limine (“MIL”) rulings may be useful to the receiving courts. See 

Docs. 10075, 10235, 10258, 10947. The courts are referred to the following motions and 

orders to assist in preparing for trial:4

• Parties’ Joint Stipulation on MILs in Booker: The Court, on stipulation of 

the parties, excluded evidence concerning several case-specific issues in the 

Booker bellwether trial, as well as a few general issues, including: Bard’s 1994 

criminal conviction; other lawsuits or claims against Bard; advertising by 

Plaintiff’s counsel; Plaintiff’s counsel specializing in personal injury or 

products liability litigation; contingency fee agreements; and advertising by 

any counsel nationally for IVC filter cases. Doc. 10235.

• Defendants MIL 1 in Booker: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning Recovery complications. Doc. 10258 at 1-5; see Doc. 10819 

(Jones). As noted above, the Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning Recovery filter cephalad migration deaths in the Booker bellwether 

trial involving a G2 filter (Doc. 10323 at 4), but excluded such evidence in the 

trials involving a G2X or Eclipse filter (Docs. 10819, 10920, 11041).

• Defendants’ MIL 2 in Booker: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

relating to the development of the Recovery filter. Doc. 10258 at 5-6; see 

Doc. 10819 at 2-3 (Jones).

• Defendants’ MIL 4 in Booker: The Court excluded evidence and testimony 

concerning a photograph of Bard employee Michael Randall making an 

offensive gesture. Doc. 10075 at 1-2.

• Defendants’ MIL 5 in Booker: The Court permitted Plaintiff’s expert 

Dr. Thomas Kinney to be called as a fact witness, but prohibited him from 

testifying regarding his prior work for Bard as an expert witness in two prior 

IVC filter cases or as a paid consultant to Bard. Docs. 10075 at 2-3, 10323 

at 4.

 

4 The Court also ruled on the parties’ MILs concerning several case-specific 

issues. See Docs. 10075 (Plaintiff’s MIL 12 in Booker), 10258 (Plaintiff’s’ MILs 6 

and 13 in Booker), 10947 (Defendants’ MIL 1 and Plaintiff’s MILs 1-4 and 7 in Jones), 

12533 (Plaintiff’s MIL 3 in Hyde), 17285 (Plaintiff’s MIL 1 in Tinlin), 17401 (Plaintiff’s 

MILs 2, 3, and 6 in Tinlin).

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 25 of 85
26

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

• Plaintiff’s MIL 2 in Booker: The Court reserved ruling until trial on evidence 

and testimony regarding the nature of Bard’s business, including the nature, 

quality, and usefulness of its products, the conscientiousness of its employees, 

and references to its mission statement. Doc. 10075 at 3-4. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 3 in Booker: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning the benefits of IVC filters, including testimony describing Bard 

filters as “lifesaving” devices. Doc. 10258 at 8. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 4 in Booker: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

that IVC filters, including Bard’s filters, are within the standard of care for the 

medical treatment of pulmonary embolism. Doc. 10258 at 8-9. Defendants 

agreed to not characterize IVC filters as the “gold standard” for the treatment 

of pulmonary embolisms. Id. at 8.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 5 in Booker: The Court denied as moot the motion to exclude 

evidence and argument relating to failure rates, complication rates, 

percentages, or comparative analysis of any injuries that were not produced to 

Plaintiffs during discovery, as all such information was produced. Doc. 10075 

at 4. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 7 in Booker: The Court excluded evidence and argument 

relating to prior judicial opinions about Plaintiffs’ experts, including the 

number of times their testimony has been precluded in other cases. Id.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 8 in Booker: The Court excluded evidence and argument that 

a verdict against Defendants will have an adverse impact on the medical 

community, future medical device research or costs, and the availability of 

medical care. Id. at 4-5. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 9 in Booker: The Court deferred ruling on the relevance of 

statements or lack of statements from medical societies, including the Society 

of Interventional Radiologists (“SIR”), until trial. Doc. 10258 at 14-18. The 

Court ultimately admitted this evidence in both the Booker and Jones

bellwether trials.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 10 in Booker: The Court excluded evidence and testimony 

that Bard needed FDA consent to add warnings to its labels, send warning 

letters to physicians and patients, or recall its filters. Id. at 18-19. The Court 

permitted evidence and argument explaining the reasons why Bard filters were 

not recalled, FDA’s potential involvement in any recall effort, and the fact that 

warnings about failure rates and increased risks could not be based on MDR 

and MAUDE data alone. Id.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 11 in Booker: The Court permitted evidence and argument 

relating to the informed consent form signed by Plaintiff prior to insertion of 

the IVC filter, even though the form is not specific to IVC filters or Bard 

filters. Doc. 10075 at 5-6. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 14 in Booker: The Court reserved ruling until trial on 

evidence and argument relating to background information and personal traits 

of Bard employees and witnesses. Id. at 7. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 26 of 85
27

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

• Plaintiff’s MIL 6 in Jones: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning whether a party’s expert had been retained by the same attorneys in 

other litigation. Doc. 10947 at 8-9. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 5 in Jones: The Court excluded evidence and testimony that 

Bard employees or their relatives have received Bard IVC filter implants. Id. 

at 9-10.

• Defendants’ MIL 2 in Jones: The Court excluded evidence and testimony of 

other lawsuits against Bard. Id. at 11. 

• Plaintiff’s MILs 4 and 5 in Hyde: The Court permitted evidence and 

testimony concerning Bard’s Instructions for Use (“IFU”) and SIR Guidelines. 

Doc. 12507.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 2 in Hyde: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent Deep Vein 

Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism.” Doc. 12533 at 4-6.

• Defendants’ MIL 3 in Hyde: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

that Bard’s SNF is a reasonable alternative design. Id. at 7.

• Defendants’ MIL 4 in Hyde: The Court excluded testimony from Dr.

Muehrcke about his personal feelings of betrayal and his moral and ethical 

issues with Bard’s conduct. Id. at 7-8.

• Defendants’ MIL 6 in Hyde: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

regarding informed consent. Id. at 8-9.

• Plaintiff’s MIL 4 in Tinlin: The Court reserved ruling until trial on evidence 

and argument relating to a chart created by Defendants from their internal 

TrackWise database regarding reporting rates of IVC filter complications. 

Doc. 17401 at 5. 

• Plaintiff’s MIL 5 in Tinlin: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning a chart comparing the sales of the permanent SNF with those of 

retrievable filters between 2002 and 2016. Id. at 5-6.

• Defendants’ MIL 3 in Tinlin: The Court permitted evidence and testimony 

concerning the Recovery Filter Crisis Communications Plan that Bard had 

prepared in 2004 to help manage damaging media coverage about a Recovery 

migration death. Id. at 11-12.

• Defendants’ MIL 4 in Tinlin: The Court excluded evidence and testimony 

concerning Dr. Muehrcke’s untimely disclosed opinion that one of his patients 

died from cardiac tamponade caused by a fractured strut that had embolized to 

her heart. Id. at 12-13.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 27 of 85
28

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

6. Deposition Designation Rulings.

The Court has ruled on numerous objections to deposition designations for trial 

and refers the transferor courts to the following orders:

5

Deponent Depo. Date Doc. No(s).

Bill Altonaga 10/22/2013 10497, 10922

Christine Brauer 05/23/2014

08/02/2017

10922,

10922

David Ciavarella 11/12/2013 10403

Gary Cohen 01/25/2017 10438

Robert Cortelezzi 11/11/2016 10438, 11064

Len DeCant 05/24/2016 10438, 11080

John DeFord 06/02/2016 10524, 11080

Mary Edwards 01/20/2014 10438

Robert Ferrara 04/17/2017 10438

Chris Ganser 10/11/2016 10438, 11073

Jason Greer 08/11/2014 10438, 10922

Janet Hudnall 11/01/2013 10403

Brian Hudson 01/17/2014 10403

John Lehmann 08/07/2014 10922

William Little 07/27/2016 10438, 11064

John McDermott 02/05/2014 10438

 

5

In addition to the depositions identified in the table above, the Court ruled on 

numerous objections to case-specific deposition designations for trial. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 28 of 85
29

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

Deponent Depo. Date Doc. No(s).

Patrick McDonald 07/29/2016 10486, 11064

Mark Moritz 07/18/2017 10922

Daniel Orms 08/16/2016 10403, 11073

Abithal Raji-Kubba 07/18/2016 11064

Gin Schulz 01/30/2014 10403

Christopher Smith 08/03/2017 11073

William Stavropoulos 02/01/2017 10524

Jack Sullivan 11/03/2016

09/16/2016

10486, 

11080

Melanie Sussman 04/07/2017 11073

Mehdi Syed 03/02/2018 11313

Scott Trerotola 01/20/2017 10524

Douglas Uelmen 10/04/2013 10403, 11080

Carol Vierling 05/11/2016 10486, 11073

Mark Wilson 01/31/2017 10922

Natalie Wong 10/18/2016 10403

7. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Ruling.

The parties identified cases in the MDL for which federal subject matter 

jurisdiction does not exist. Doc. 20210. No federal question jurisdiction exists under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the master complaint asserts no federal claim and the state law 

claims alleged in the complaint do not depend on the resolution of a federal law question. 

See Doc. 364 ¶¶ 166-349. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. is a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant Bard Peripheral 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 29 of 85
30

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

Vascular, Inc. is a citizen of Arizona. See id. ¶¶ 11-12. Thus, complete diversity 

between the parties does not exist in any case where Plaintiff is a resident of either 

Arizona or New Jersey. See Doc. 20210-1.

Plaintiffs in most of the cases without subject matter jurisdiction agreed to a 

dismissal without prejudice. See id. Plaintiffs in other cases opposed dismissal, but 

provided no reason for why the cases should not be dismissed. See id. The Court 

dismissed without prejudice 37 cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Doc. 

20667. Some of these cases may be refiled in state court. See Doc. 20210-1.

I. Further Proceedings in Remanded or Transferred Cases.

1. General Discovery.

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. This observation is not meant to restrict the power 

of receiving courts for good cause or in the interest of justice to address issues that may 

be unique and relevant a in remanded or transferred case.

2. Case-Specific Discovery and Trial Preparation.

According to the parties, the status of the remaining discovery and other pretrial 

issues for the cases being remanded or transferred, and the estimated time needed to 

resolve such issues and make the cases ready for trial, will be determined on remand or 

transfer. Final trial preparation in the bellwether trials was governed by certain Court 

orders. See Docs. 8871, 10323, 10587, 11011, 11320, 11321, 11659, 11871, 12061, 

12853, 12971.

J. Documents to Be Sent to Receiving Courts.

If the Panel agrees with the Court’s suggestion of remand of the case listed on 

Schedule A and issues a final remand order (“FRO”), the Clerk of the Court for this 

District will issue a letter to the transferor court, via email, setting out the process for 

transferring the case. The letter and certified copy of the FRO will be sent to the

transferor court’s email address.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 30 of 85
31

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 have submitted a stipulated designation of record for remanded cases. 

Doc. 19444-1; see J.P.M.L Rule 10.4(a). Upon receipt of the FRO, the Clerk of this 

District shall transmit to the transferor court the following: (1) a copy of the individual 

docket sheet for the remanded action, (2) a copy of the master docket sheet in this MDL, 

(3) the entire file for the remanded action, as originally received from the transferor 

district, and (4) the record on remand designated by the parties. See Doc. 19444-1; 

J.P.M.L Rule 10.4(b).

The Court has concluded that the cases listed on Schedule B should be transferred 

to appropriate districts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Upon receipt of this transfer 

order, the Clerk for this District shall follow the same procedures prescribed above for 

each of the individual cases listed on Schedule B.

If a party believes that the docket sheet for a particular case being remanded or 

transferred is not correct, a party to that case may, with notice to all other parties in the 

case, file with the receiving court a designation amending the record. Upon receiving 

such designation, the receiving court may make any needed changes to the docket. If the 

docket is revised to include additional documents, the parties should provide those 

documents to the receiving court.

IV. Conclusion.

Pursuant to J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b)(i), the Court suggests that the Panel remand the

case listed on Schedule A to the transferor district for further proceedings. The Clerk 

shall forward a certified copy of this order to the Panel.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Clerk of this District is directed to transfer

the cases listed on Schedule B to appropriate districts for further proceedings.

The Clerk of this District is directed to unconsolidate from the MDL the two cases 

listed on Schedule C. These cases will remain in the District of Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 17th day of October, 2019.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 31 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule A – Case to be Remanded to Transferor Court

(October 17, 2019)

1

Case Caption Current Case Number Transferor Court and Case Number

Yates v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:15-cv-02380 S.D. Ind., No. 1:15-cv-01466-JMS-DML

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 32 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

1

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

James Armstrong v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03556 Ala. M.D.

Larome C. Meadows v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-03011 Ala. M.D.

Janet L. Thompson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01109 Ala. M.D.

Brenda Weakley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01309 Ala. M.D.

Teddy Wilson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01643 Ala. M.D.

Brittany N. Hughes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01638 Ala. N.D.

Christopher M. Fuller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00199 Ala. N.D.

Cynthia D. Walton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02115 Ala. N.D.

David E. Crump v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00195 Ala. N.D.

James Frank Bradley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03126 Ala. N.D.

Roger D. Green v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02334 Ala. N.D.

Virginia Plott v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04530 Ala. N.D.

John Kirnbauer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03324 Ala. N.D.

Melissa E. Rogers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03243 Ala. S.D.

Virginia Ann Burleson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03127 Ala. S.D.

Eloise Coleman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03826 Ark. E.D.

Tyler Hall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04230 Ark. E.D.

Betty A. Bass v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04261 Ark. E.D.

Kelsey D. Doddridge v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03131 Ark. E.D.

Shannon N. Thomas v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04313 Ark. E.D.

Stefanie D. Castleberry v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04270 Ark. E.D.

Steven Ray Hemphill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01106 Ark. E.D.

Theodore Hamilton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03277 Ark. W.D.

Catherine Finn v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04118 Cal. C.D.

Cheryl O’Neill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-03128 Cal. C.D.

Brandon Bartilet v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04259 Cal. C.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 33 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

2

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Stephen Lloyd Bates v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04519 Cal. C.D.

James E. Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01879 Cal. E.D.

Gary O’Brine v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03542 Cal. E.D.

Judy Ann LaLonde v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02346 Cal. E.D.

Thomas Umphreys v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04315 Cal. N.D.

Scott Nichol v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04279 Cal. N.D.

Catalina Campos-Eibeck v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03658 Cal. S.D.

Thomas McHenry v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-01592 Cal. S.D.

Desiree Velazquez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02148 Cal. S.D.

Debbie Lucero v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00205 Colo.

Kayla Jackson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02239 Colo.

Shawn M. Latorra-Lutz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04527 Colo.

Caroline McKenzie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01483 Conn.

Daniel A. Rivera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02244 Conn.

Dawn M. Dessureau v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03215 Conn.

Joseph H. Szumowski v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04534 Conn.

Stephen Wetowitz, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04319 Conn.

Amy Lappos Ray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-01047 Conn.

Erica Shantique Parker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02342 D.C.

Eunice Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03225 D.C.

Keyawna Yvonne Kirby v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03603 D.C.

Monica M. Hagans v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03134 D.C.

William James, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03551 D.C.

Jo C. Lutness v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01448 Del.

Holly Wingate v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04277 Del.

Annette Spaulding v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03663 Fla. M.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 34 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

3

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Connie Lee Nevings v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03227 Fla. M.D.

Cyril Francis Natcher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02015 Fla. M.D.

Elsie Marie Haffner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02325 Fla. M.D.

Eugene E. Turner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03143 Fla. M.D.

James Bankston v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01954 Fla. M.D.

James Barlow v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03568 Fla. M.D.

James P. Taylor, v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01302 Fla. M.D.

Jean C. Brigandi v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02339 Fla. M.D.

John Charles Lloyd v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04295 Fla. M.D.

John Thomas Venosh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04316 Fla. M.D.

Jose English v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03662 Fla. M.D.

Joseph R. Carusone v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02140 Fla. M.D.

Judith Muschaweck v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01108 Fla. M.D.

Julie Vinson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03665 Fla. M.D.

Larry L. Elsenheimer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02201 Fla. M.D.

Margaret Laurie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01520 Fla. M.D.

Martin Rutten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04308 Fla. M.D.

Melanie Lockwood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01872 Fla. M.D.

Michelle Boehringer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02345 Fla. M.D.

Patricia R. Gilliam v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02246 Fla. M.D.

Phyllis J. Fisher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03133 Fla. M.D.

Ruby Morey-Howard v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01853 Fla. M.D.

Samuel E. Fox v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02120 Fla. M.D.

Susie Mae Skelton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03617 Fla. M.D.

Tara Michele Greaver v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04281 Fla. M.D.

Willis Bowick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01208 Fla. M.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 35 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

4

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Zachry N. McFadden v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04563 Fla. M.D.

Michael Christian Lumley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04296 Fla. M.D.

Robert Belknap v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03319 Fla. M.D.

Eleanor Cotton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03559 Fla. M.D.

Holly Reeser v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04257 Fla. M.D.

Shannon Wright v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04188 Fla. M.D.

Daniel P. Hardin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04282 Fla. N.D.

Anease Nelson-Travis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03984 Fla. N.D.

Antwin Hepburn, Sr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00176 Fla. S.D.

Cathleen Maddera Ortega v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03139 Fla. S.D.

Esteban Ortiz, III v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04301 Fla. S.D.

Gregory Herron v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04289 Fla. S.D.

Jacob De La Cruz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03580 Fla. S.D.

Joel Goldmacher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03472 Fla. S.D.

Sheila K. Childers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03570 Fla. S.D.

Stanley L. Crane v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04275 Fla. S.D.

Thomas McIntosh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04321 Fla. S.D.

Malena Lee v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-04316 Fla. S.D.

Dwight Campos v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03325 Fla. S.D.

Pamela Charles v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03822 Fla. S.D.

Emily Robinson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02241 Ga. M.D.

Lisa Murphy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04123 Ga. M.D.

Amy Hitch v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01312 Ga. N.D.

Billie Lee Kilpatrick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03473 Ga. N.D.

Carol A. Fausnaugh v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03589 Ga. N.D.

Carroll Wondimagegnehu v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01558 Ga. N.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 36 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

5

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Cherlyn Stegall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01182 Ga. N.D.

Debra Ann Scholten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03616 Ga. N.D.

Debra Long v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01880 Ga. N.D.

Emily F. Morrow v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02192 Ga. N.D.

Floria J. Harrison v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04283 Ga. N.D.

Helen Gaye Swords v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00283 Ga. N.D.

Janet R. Bonner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01487 Ga. N.D.

Karen Leah Gordon v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01486 Ga. N.D.

Karen Woodson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01480 Ga. N.D.

Margie Mae Connell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03571 Ga. N.D.

Marschette Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01649 Ga. N.D.

Martha G Wiley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03667 Ga. N.D.

Patrice Jackson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01484 Ga. N.D.

Richard Thompkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02197 Ga. N.D.

Wanda Blevins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03278 Ga. N.D.

Jamie Shardae Carr v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03659 Ga. S.D.

Melissa Sue Churchwell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04271 Ga. S.D.

Sandra D. Dawson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01184 Ga. S.D.

Denita E. Alexander-Hamm v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00192 Ga. S.D.

James Cook, II v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04146 Iowa N.D.

Elizabeth J. Stafford v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01303 Iowa S.D.

Rakisha Tucker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02179 Iowa S.D.

Eddy Hupp v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03541 Idaho

Gary D. Stukins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04719 Ill. C.D.

Brian Hickey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04313 Ill. N.D.

David Garrison v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01694 Ill. N.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 37 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

6

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Henry J. Clay v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04272 Ill. N.D.

Irris Robertson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01560 Ill. N.D.

Jane Cole v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04273 Ill. N.D.

Kerry L. Ryan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02122 Ill. N.D.

Michael Bowen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03322 Ill. N.D.

Dennis Dahl v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03554 Ill. N.D.

Emma L. Maxwell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03138 Ind. N.D.

Michael Eugene Moore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04300 Ind. N.D.

Steven L. Haywood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02566 Ind. N.D.

Brenda Joyce Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01183 Kan.

Ronald W. Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01447 Kan.

Vicki Lynn Dercher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04280 Kan.

Boyd Blackburn v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04365 Ky. E.D.

Charles G. Campbell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04268 Ky. E.D.

Evelyn G. Cramer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01758 Ky. E.D.

Kimberlee S. Wilburn v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03144 Ky. E.D.

Nancy G. Platt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00215 Ky. E.D.

Tommie Hugh Still v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02041 Ky. E.D.

Lana R. Hamilton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02324 Ky. W.D.

Tonya M. Tyler-Neal v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02036 Ky. W.D.

Sharon Campeaux v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-02076 La. E.D.

Kenneth Landry v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01752 La. E.D.

Lester White, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01465 La. E.D.

Marvin G. Schaffer, Sr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04531 La. E.D.

Randall Francis Cullen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04093 La. E.D.

Jean Dupree v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04139 La. E.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 38 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

7

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

John Fitzgerald Norwood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00214 La. M.D.

Wellington J. Morse v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04528 La. W.D.

Brian Kirkpatrick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00204 Mass.

Ann Benvenuto v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03539 Mass.

Yvonne M. Tatro v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02180 Mass.

Nancy Cunha v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04224 Mass.

Brandy Bayton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04157 Md.

Darnell G. Collins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04237 Md.

Michael Jenkins, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04291 Md.

Paige E. Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02147 Md.

Richard Drury v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04304 Md.

Richard S. Edwards v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01955 Md.

Ursula Farlow v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03217 Md.

Helen Mouran v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04770 Md.

Steven Bentley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03849 Md.

Daniel Laurie v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04195 Md.

Michael G. Mason, III v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02051 Me.

Shawn D. Spratt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02052 Me.

Carl Parr v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02116 Mich. E.D.

Charles Richmond Bell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03123 Mich. E.D.

Donald Leon Keyes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04292 Mich. E.D.

Judy Lawson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01488 Mich. E.D.

Tammy Montgomery v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00207 Mich. E.D.

Donald Nance v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03219 Mich. E.D.

Eilene A. Anttila v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01675 Mich. W.D.

Kelly Lee Allen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02198 Mich. W.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 39 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

8

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Andrea Bunker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01257 Mich. W.D.

Sharon Louise Deblock v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03129 Mich. W.D.

Dennis H. Sheetz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04310 Minn.

Wesley Henderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02117 Minn.

Larry Carlson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-01684 Minn.

Bryan Aegerter v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01411 Minn.

Billy G. Robinson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01555 Mo. E.D.

James D. Fancher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04312 Mo. E.D.

Susan Jane McDaniel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02240 Mo. E.D.

Mario Newton-Handy v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04137 Mo. E.D.

James Robert Dickson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03661 Mo. W.D.

Kelly Robinson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04269 Mo. W.D.

Marvin E. Seek v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02245 Mo. W.D.

Williams Barnard Harris v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04526 Mo. W.D.

Youdoran Young v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04322 Mo. W.D.

Callie Emmons v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03584 Miss. N.D.

George W. Garner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03218 Miss. N.D.

Marcus Dean Cole v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02182 Miss. N.D.

Sharon Butler v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03321 Miss. N.D.

Pamela Manogin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04134 Miss. N.D.

Barbara A. Brooks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04310 Miss. S.D.

Mary E. Houston v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04165 Miss. S.D.

Robert Hines v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01934 Miss. S.D.

Sandra Bowman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03657 Miss. S.D.

Ariel Barnes Brown v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03862 Miss. S.D.

Grace M. Fairhurst v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00196 Mont.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 40 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

9

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Colette Taylor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00282 N.C. E.D.

Felicia Lynch v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01935 N.C. E.D.

Larry J. Hurley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01874 N.C. E.D.

Mary A. Massey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04299 N.C. E.D.

Barbara B. Riggs v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02014 N.C. M.D.

Thomas Richmond Spring v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02123 N.C. M.D.

Alexis S. Westerfield v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00281 N.C. W.D.

Jerry L. Bingham, III v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04263 N.C. W.D.

Noelle Crisp v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03660 N.C. W.D.

Tabitha Irene Eastridge v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03471 N.C. W.D.

Victoria Lynn Kingston v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03136 N.C. W.D.

Lewis Allen James v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-03919 N.C. W.D.

David Lee v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03853 N.C. W.D.

Donna Marie Sweetland v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04312 N.H.

Erwin Nezbegay v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03145 N.M.

Kenneth Peccatiello v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01852 N.M.

Javier Chavez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04111 N.M.

Danielle E. Womack v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01481 Nev.

John C. Vanbiber v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00259 Nev.

Lynn Marie Hrnciar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01680 Nev.

RuthAnn Johnston v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00202 Nev.

Virginia M. Orgill v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03611 Nev.

Tobie Christensen v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-02901 Nev.

Gwendolyn Wilson-Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03236 Nev.

Kimberly Kunkle v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03555 Nev.

Peggy Collins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03953 Nev.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 41 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

10

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Shontelle Baker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04303 Nev.

Zyaire Dukes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01348 N.J.

Ann Marie Pickraum v. BPV, Inc. 2:18-cv-04388 N.J

Danielle Hanley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03596 N.Y. E.D.

Sarah Y. Rainey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04303 N.Y. E.D.

Willie Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03546 N.Y. E.D.

Paul Avignone v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04105 N.Y. E.D.

Bonnie Bayait v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00193 N.Y. N.D.

Dennis J. Dillon v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03130 N.Y. N.D.

Bruce MacMillan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04297 N.Y. N.D.

Julie Fuller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01414 N.Y. N.D.

Bonnie Latimore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03137 N.Y. S.D.

Ivette Morales v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02330 N.Y. S.D.

John S. Evans v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03132 N.Y. S.D.

Karen M. Staats v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02332 N.Y. S.D.

Michael Kar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01936 N.Y. S.D.

Tonya Best v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03543 N.Y. S.D.

Karen A. Scott v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03141 N.Y. W.D.

Michael Orlando v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04529 N.Y. W.D.

Patricia M. Bestor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01953 N.Y. W.D.

Samuel A. Roma v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03140 N.Y. W.D.

Anthony Cabrera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03569 Ohio N.D.

David S. Sweeney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04533 Ohio N.D.

Garnell Lee Toomer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04314 Ohio N.D.

John A. Hogan v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03599 Ohio N.D.

Lori B. Bandor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04308 Ohio N.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 42 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

11

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Mark Kapp v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00203 Ohio N.D.

Diana Dilisio v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-04395 Ohio N.D.

Brandon Underwood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04207 Ohio N.D.

Carla J. Young v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01523 Ohio S.D.

Christopher Brian Patrick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04302 Ohio S.D.

Craig Allen Kettell v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02719 Ohio S.D.

Crystal H. Tysinger v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01209 Ohio S.D.

Danny Ray Wooten v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04321 Ohio S.D.

Harry A. Culbertson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00570 Ohio S.D.

Charles Prouty v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03545 Ohio S.D.

John Wentzel v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04173 Okla. N.D.

Tammy M. Heape v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04288 Okla. N.D.

Ryan Patrick Miller v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01489 Okla. W.D.

Mose Garlin Starrett v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04311 Okla. W.D.

Deberah Nightingale v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04220 Okla. W.D.

William Conrad v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01180 Or.

Justin Peterson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-00774 Or.

Carson R. Clinger v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02119 Pa. E.D.

Cherieamour Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03601 Pa. E.D.

Erin S. Mahoney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01513 Pa. E.D.

Gary Shaw, Sr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04309 Pa. E.D.

Jon Clifton Frey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03593 Pa. E.D.

Nadine S. Franks v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03592 Pa. E.D.

Nancy Huhn v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04138 Pa. E.D.

Deborah Iswalt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04239 Pa. E.D.

Kathleen Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04132 Pa. E.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 43 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

12

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Michael Patches v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04156 Pa. E.D.

Amy Sue Poplawski v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01115 Pa. M.D.

George T. Bennett, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04520 Pa. M.D.

Susan L. Rice v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04306 Pa. M.D.

William E. Rudy, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-03000 Pa. M.D.

Mark Caster v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-04394 Pa. M.D.

Bernard Bolsar v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-00597 Pa. M.D.

Jacqueline C. Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-01179 Pa. M.D.

Mary A. Sheetz v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04253 Pa. W.D.

Jason E. Lavimodiere v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01485 R.I.

Chris Edward Thaxton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02199 S.C.

Joshua Cook v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03643 S.C.

Lynn L. Cole v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04274 S.C.

Richard Stephenson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03620 S.C.

Tasha N. Jenkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02194 S.C.

Terry L. Hewitt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02118 S.C.

Wanda C. Rhodes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04305 S.C.

Jean Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03558 S.C.

Hercules Huggins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04071 S.C.

Tammie Manigo v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04185 S.C.

Justin Cramer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01308 S.D.

Charlotte Taylor v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02243 Tenn. E.D.

Donald E. Rowe, Sr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01445 Tenn. E.D.

Norman M. Brehob v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02013 Tenn. E.D.

Phillip H. Webb v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04318 Tenn. E.D.

Virgil L. Henderson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04133 Tenn. E.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 44 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

13

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

David Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04219 Tenn. E.D.

John Lester Filson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02043 Tenn. M.D.

Joshua Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04240 Tenn. M.D.

Raquel Rodriguez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03196 Tenn. M.D.

Robert R. McDonald v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01524 Tenn. M.D.

Kristine Kidder v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01114 Tenn. W.D.

Carrihuna Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02336 Tenn. W.D.

Leonard R. Rice v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-02037 Tenn. W.D.

Willie Walker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03666 Tenn. W.D.

Julie Morris v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-02402 Tenn. W.D.

Timmy Ale Cole, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03824 Tenn. W.D.

Charles Hodgson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04290 Tex. E.D.

David Roger Alligood v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03567 Tex. E.D.

Felice D. Wright v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02564 Tex. E.D.

Nelda Sue Sellers v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03142 Tex. E.D.

Sharon High v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01790 Tex. E.D.

Mechelle Humphrey v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04144 Tex. E.D.

Derreck Salas v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04258 Tex. E.D.

Angela Wall v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04535 Tex. N.D.

Crissie Mae Huey-Tuger v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-03122 Tex. N.D.

Joseph Rodriguez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03221 Tex. N.D.

John Pledger v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03871 Tex. N.D.

Arnold Leon Jones v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03226 Tex. N.D.

Carol E. Hudson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03600 Tex. N.D.

Dennis Denson, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04278 Tex. N.D.

Joey James Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04277 Tex. N.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 45 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

14

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Kelly Mooney v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00285 Tex. N.D.

Mary Helen Sanchez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02242 Tex. N.D.

Michael Turner v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00216 Tex. N.D.

Randell Lee Hart v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03597 Tex. N.D.

Rhonda Lynn Lusk v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00206 Tex. N.D.

Ronnie D. Carr v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04269 Tex. N.D.

Seth Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03579 Tex. N.D.

Zachary Allan Chapman v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04213 Tex. N.D.

Josephine Hampton v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04154 Tex. N.D.

Joseph Rivera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04302 Tex. N.D.

Cynthia Woods v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04147 Tex. N.D.

Beatrice Hernandez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01211 Tex. S.D.

Chere M. Weaver v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04317 Tex. S.D.

Corey Edward Schrader v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01679 Tex. S.D.

Dan Dillon v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04525 Tex. S.D.

Daniel Vaughn Redding v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04304 Tex. S.D.

Davin Tisdale v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01446 Tex. S.D.

Fenton R. Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03214 Tex. S.D.

Joyce Toliver v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01871 Tex. S.D.

Serafin Rafael Sosa, Jr. v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02200 Tex. S.D.

Willie J. Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03602 Tex. S.D.

Mohamed Ebeid v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-03265 Tex. S.D.

John Flores v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04038 Tex. S.D.

Loretta Sackett v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03828 Tex. S.D.

Latysha Smith v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04278 Tex. S.D.

Beverly Nicole Coker v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04524 Tex. W.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 46 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

15

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Brenda Alexander v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03121 Tex. W.D.

Jayne T. Navarette v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03608 Tex. W.D.

John E. Moore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-00208 Tex. W.D.

Jose A. Rosales v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03228 Tex. W.D.

Juan Francisco Gonzalez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03223 Tex. W.D.

Patricia H. Johnson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02999 Tex. W.D.

Eric Ramirez v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03280 Tex. W.D.

Mark Williams v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03281 Tex. W.D.

Judith Jenkins v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03540 Tex. W.D.

Amanda Hight v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01117 Utah

Bernard A. Wilson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03469 Va. E.D.

Gayle Barrett v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-02121 Va. E.D.

Rodger B. Martin v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04298 Va. E.D.

Sharon Culbertson v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03577 Va. E.D.

Valencia Whitehead v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03222 Va. E.D.

Terrance Davis v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03279 Va. E.D.

Richard D. Barr v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04516 Va. W.D.

Tammy Young v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03544 Va. W.D.

Gerald Gray v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03557 Va. W.D.

Lester Thatcher v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03873 Va. W.D.

Richard J. LeBlanc v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04294 Vt.

Justin Fischer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04121 Wa. E.D.

Roshunda Thomas v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01107 Wis. E.D.

Brett A. Halstead v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03595 Wis. E.D.

Sonda Kolodzinski v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04168 Wis. E.D.

James Hermes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04113 Wis. E.D.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 47 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule B – Direct-Filed Cases to Be Transferred

(October 17, 2019)

16

Case Caption Case Number Transferee District

Todd Scharrer v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04223 Wis. E.D.

Arthur Moffatt v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03606 W. Va. S.D.

Brian Sizemore v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-01210 W. Va. S.D.

Leo W. Spradling v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:18-cv-04532 W. Va. S.D.

Retta Rhodes v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-03950 W. Va. S.D.

Camela M. Henley v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-01310 Wyo.

James Knight v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:16-cv-04396 Wyo.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 48 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Schedule C – Arizona Cases to Be Unconsolidated from the MDL

(October 17, 2019)

Case Caption Case Number Plaintiff’s Residence Proper Venue

Lauro Vargas Caldera v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:19-cv-04266 California D. Ariz.

Bruce Vollick v. C. R. Bard, Inc. 2:17-cv-02588 Nevada D. Ariz.

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 49 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

1

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND)

Exhibit 1 – MDL Orders

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS (CMOs)

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

10/30/2015 248 CMO 1 re Leadership Counsel Appointments

11/16/2016 4016 Amended CMO 1 re Leadership Counsel Appointments

03/21/2017 5285 Second Amended CMO 1 re Plaintiff Leadership Team

02/04/2019 15098 Third Amended CMO 1 re Plaintiff Leadership Team

10/30/2015 249 CMO 2 re Setting Deadlines, First Phase of Discovery

12/01/2015 314 CMO 3 re Non-waiver Order Pursuant to Rule 502(d)

12/17/2015 363 CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive Pleadings, Short 

Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

3/17/2016 1108 Amended CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive 

Pleadings, Short Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

4/20/2016 1485 Second Amended CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive 

Pleadings, Short Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

12/17/2015 365 CMO 5 re Plaintiff and Defendant Profile Forms

03/03/2016 927 Amended CMO 5 re Plaintiff and Defendant Profile Forms

12/18/2015 372 CMO 6 re Rules to Establishing Common Benefit Fee

01/05/2016 401 CMO 7 re Stipulations Concerning Redactions

02/02/2016 519 CMO 8 re Second Phase of Discovery

03/31/2016 1259 CMO 9 re ESI and production protocol

04/01/2016 1319 CMO 10 re Second Phase Discovery, Bellwether, ESI, FDA, 

Deposition, and Privilege Log

05/05/2016 1662 CMO 11 re Bellwether Selection Process

05/05/2016 1663 CMO 12 re Joint Record Collection

06/21/2016 2238 CMO 13 re ESI, FDA Warning Letter and Designations

06/21/2016 2239 CMO 14 re Deposition Protocols

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 50 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

2

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS (CMOs)

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

08/25/2016 3214 CMO 15 re Lexecon Waivers, ESI Discovery, Multi-plaintiff 

Actions, and Deceased Plaintiffs

08/25/2016 3215 CMO 16 re Deadlines Related to Barraza

12/02/2016 4141 Amended CMO 16 re Deadlines Related to Barraza

09/14/2016 3372 CMO 17 re Protective Order and Expedited ESI Production

11/16/2016 4015 Amended CMO 17 re Protective Order and Redactions of 

Material from Expedited ESI Production

10/17/2016 3685 CMO 18 re Adjusted Discovery Schedule

12/13/2016 4311 CMO 19 re ESI and Bellwether Selection

12/22/2016 4335 CMO 20 re Discovery Deadlines for Discovery Group 1 and 

Bellwether Group 1

02/06/2017 4866 CMO 21 re Discovery Protocols for Discovery Group 1

02/17/2017 5007 CMO 22 re Setting Deadlines

05/05/2017 5770 CMO 23 re Expert Deposition Deadlines, Bellwether Case 

Selection, Preemption Motion for Summary Judgment, and 

Mature Cases

05/19/2017 5881 CMO 23 re Discovery Protocols for Bellwether Group 1

05/19/2017 5883 Amended CMO 24 re Discovery Protocols for Bellwether 

Group 1

06/06/2017 6227 CMO 25 re Bellwether Group 1 Amended Discovery 

Schedule

07/17/2017 6799 CMO 26 re Depositions of Dr. Henry and Dr. Altonaga, 

Communications among Plaintiffs’ Experts, and Bellwether 

Trial Issues

10/10/2017 8113 CMO 27 re Privilege Issues, Bellwether Trial Schedule, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and 

Recusal Unnecessary

11/21/2017 8871 CMO 28 re Booker Bellwether Trial Schedule, and Mature 

Cases

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 51 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

3

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDERS (CMOs)

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

12/21/2017 9415 CMO 29 re Booker Bellwether Trial Schedule, Motion to 

Certify Appeal, and Cisson Motion Briefing

01/23/2018 9775 CMO 30 re Motions Hearings, Motions in Limine, and 

Punitive Damages in Booker

03/02/2018 10323 CMO 31 re Booker Trial

05/07/2018 11011 CMO 32 re Jones Trial

06/01/2018 11320 CMO 33 re Mulkey as Next Bellwether Selection, and 

Mulkey Trial Schedule

06/28/2018 11659 CMO 34 re Next 3 Bellwether Trials, Kruse Trial Schedule, 

Use of Dr. Kandarpa at Trial, Sixth Bellwether Tinlin, 

Disposition of SNF Cases, and Remand of Mature Cases

07/13/2018 11871 CMO 35 re September, November and May Bellwether 

Trials, and Hyde September Bellwether Trial Schedule 

08/02/2018 12061 CMO 36 re Tinlin Bellwether Pre-trial Schedule

10/04/2018 12830 CMO 37 re Hyde Trial

10/05/2018 12853 CMO 38 re Future Bellwether Trials, February and May 

Bellwether Trials, Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits, Settlement 

Talks and Remand, and SNF Cases

10/16/2018 12971 CMO 39 re Tinlin Bellwether Case

11/08/2018 13329 CMO 40 re Mulkey Bellwether Trial

02/08/2019 15176 CMO 41 re Tinlin Trial, SNF Cases, Remand of Mature 

Cases, and Possible Settlement Procedures

03/21/2019 16343 CMO 42 re Tinlin Trial, SNF Cases, Duplicative Cases, 

Settlement Procedures and Remand or Transfer

05/02/2019 17494 CMO 43 re Tinlin Trial, Common Benefit Fund Fee and 

Expense Accounts, Closing Date for New Cases and Remand 

or Transfer, and SNF Cases

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 52 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

4

DISCOVERY ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

10/30/2015 249 CMO 2 re Setting Deadlines, First Phase of Discovery

02/02/2016 519 CMO 8 re Second Phase of Discovery

03/31/2016 1259 CMO 9 re Electronically Stored Information and production 

protocol

04/01/2016 1319 CMO 10 re Second Phase Discovery, Bellwether, ESI, FDA, 

Deposition, and Privilege Log

05/05/2016 1663 CMO 12 re Joint Record Collection

06/21/2016 2238 CMO 13 re ESI, FDA Warning Letter and Designations

06/21/2016 2239 CMO 14 re Deposition Protocols

08/25/2016 3214 CMO 15 re Lexecon Waivers, ESI Discovery, Multi-plaintiff 

Actions, and Deceased Plaintiffs

08/29/2016 3272 Order re Deposition of Jim Beasley

09/06/2016 3312 Order re discovery disputes concerning Plaintiffs’ 

communications with FDA

09/06/2016 3313 Order re Plaintiffs’ communications with NBC or other 

media outlets and admissibility at trial

09/06/2016 3314 Order re Plaintiffs’ third party funding arrangements

09/14/2016 3372 CMO 17 re Protective Order and Expedited ESI Production

11/16/2016 4015 Amended CMO 17 re Protective Order and Redactions of 

Material from Expedited ESI Production

09/16/2016 3398 Order re ESI generated by foreign entities that sell filters 

abroad

10/17/2016 3685 CMO 18 re Adjusted Discovery Schedule

12/13/2016 4311 CMO 19 re ESI and Bellwether Selection

12/22/2016 4335 CMO 20 re Discovery Deadlines for Discovery Group 1 and 

Bellwether Group 1

12/24/2016 4339 Order re proposed depositions of and interrogatories to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 53 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

5

DISCOVERY ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

02/06/2017 4865 Order re discovery dispute on ex parte communications with 

treating physicians and depositions of treating physicians and 

sales representatives

02/06/2017 4866 CMO 21 re Discovery Protocols for Discovery Group 1

05/05/2017 5770 CMO 23 re Expert Deposition Deadlines, Bellwether Case 

Selection, Preemption Motion for Summary Judgment, and 

Mature Cases

05/19/2017 5881 CMO 23 re Discovery Protocols for Bellwether Group 1

05/19/2017 5883 Amended CMO 24 re Discovery Protocols for Bellwether 

Group 1

06/06/2017 6227 CMO 25 re Bellwether Group 1 Amended Discovery 

Schedule

07/17/2017 6799 CMO 26 re Depositions of Dr. Henry and Dr. Altonaga, 

Communications among Plaintiffs’ Experts, and Bellwether 

Trial Issues

DISCOVERY AND PRIVILEGE ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

12/01/2015 314 CMO 3 re Non-waiver Order Pursuant to Rule 502(d)

02/11/2016 699 Order re Motion for Protective Order concerning Dr. John 

Lehmann's December 15, 2004, report as protected work 

product

07/25/2016 2813 Order re Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Privilege Log Issues)

02/06/2017 4865 Order re discovery dispute on ex parte communications with 

treating physicians and depositions of treating physicians and 

sales representatives

07/17/2017 6799 CMO 26 re Depositions of Dr. Henry and Dr. Altonaga, 

Communications among Plaintiffs’ Experts, and Bellwether 

Trial Issues

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 54 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

6

DISCOVERY AND PRIVILEGE ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

10/10/2017 8113 CMO 27 re Privilege Issues, Bellwether Trial Schedule, 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and 

Recusal Unnecessary

10/20/2017 8315 Order that Plaintiffs need not produce the withheld expert 

communications or provide a privilege log on these 

communications to Defendants. 

DAUBERT ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

12/21/2017 9428 Order re Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Expert Thomas 

Kinney, M.D.

12/21/2017 9432 Order re Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Experts Drs. 

Resnick, Vogelzang, and Desai

12/22/2017 9433 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts Drs. Parisian 

and Kessler

12/22/2017 9434 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts Drs. Kinney, 

Roberts, and Kalva

01/22/2018 9770 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Eisenberg

01/22/2018 9771 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Muehrcke

01/22/2018 9772 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Hurst

01/22/2018 9773 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Betensky

02/06/2018 9991 Order re Motion to Exclude Bard's Expert Dr. Grassi 

02/08/2018 10051 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. 

McMeeking 

02/08/2018 10052 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Ritchie 

02/12/2018 10072 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts Drs. Garcia 

and Streiff 

02/21/2018 10230 Order re Motion to Exclude Bard's Experts Drs. Grassi and 

Morris 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 55 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

7

DAUBERT ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

02/21/2018 10231 Order re Motion to Exclude Bard's Expert Dr. Morris 

04/16/2019 16992 Order re Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. 

McMeeking

04/23/2019 17285 Order re Motion to Exclude Bard’s Expert Dr. Morris

MOTIONS IN LIMINE ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

01/23/2018 9775 CMO 30 re Motions Hearings, Motions in Limine, and 

Punitive Damages in Booker

01/26/2018 9861 Joint Stipulation re prohibiting raising certain issues in the 

presence of the jury for Booker Bellwether case

01/29/2018 9881 Order re admissibility of (1) pre-market clearance of Bard 

IVC filters by FDA and (2) the lack of FDA Enforcement 

Action against Bard

02/15/2018 10075 Order re Motions in Limine re Photographs of Mike Randall, 

Dr. Kinney work for Bard, Benevolent Activities, Evidence 

Not Produced in Complaint Files, Prior Judicial Opinions, 

Adverse Impact of a Plaintiff's Verdict, Informed Consent 

Form, Dr. Kang Social Media Posts, Personal Traits of 

Employees and Witnesses for Booker Bellwether case

02/22/2018 10235 Order re Parties' Joint Stipulation re prohibiting raising 

certain issues in the presence of the jury for Booker 

Bellwether case

03/01/2018 10258 Order re Motions in Limine re Recovery® Filter 

Complications, Recovery® Filter Development, FDA 

Warning Letter, IVC Filter as Lifesaving Devices, IVC filters 

are Gold Standard, Nonparties at Fault, Statements from 

Associations and Other Groups, FDA Consent for Warnings 

or Recalls for Booker Bellwether case

03/09/2018 10382 Order re Plaintiff's use of the depositions of Drs. Moritz, 

Rogers, and Stein at trial 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 56 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

8

MOTIONS IN LIMINE ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

03/19/2018 10489 Order re Simon Nitinol Filter complication evidence

04/18/2018 10819 Order re reconsideration motions relating to Recovery® 

Filter Evidence and cephalad Migration Deaths for Jones 

Bellwether case

04/27/2018 10920 Order re Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of Court Order 

excluding evidence of Recovery® Filter Cephalad Migration 

Deaths for Jones Bellwether case

05/03/2018 10947 Order re Motions in Limine re (1) Case Specific Medical 

Issues (2) Relatives receipt of IVC Filters, (3) Experts 

Retained In Other Litigation, (4) Attorney Advertising, (5) 

Other Lawsuits for Jones Bellwether case

05/08/2018 11041 Order re cephalad migration deaths for Jones Bellwether case

05/15/2018 11082 Order re reconsideration of Recovery migration deaths

05/29/2018 11256 Order re cephalad migration, Recovery filter and deaths and 

FDA evidence for Jones Bellwether case

09/04/2018 12507 Order re SIR Guidelines and IFU for Hyde Bellwether case

09/07/2018 12533 Order re cephalad migration deaths, SNF as reasonable 

alternative design, personal opinions of Dr. Muehrcke, 

informed consent, FDA evidence, Surgeon General’s Call to 

Action, and falling accidents for Hyde Bellwether case

04/23/2019 17285 Order re medical care as an intervening cause of injury for 

Tinlin Bellwether case

04/26/2019 17401 Order re Ms. Tinlin’s IVC Size, unrelated medical 

conditions, rates of filter complications, retrievable filter 

sales versus SNF sales, social security benefits, cephalad 

migration deaths, FDA warning letter, crisis communications 

plan, and patient at Dr. Muehrcke’s hospital for Tinlin 

Bellwether case

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 57 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

9

DEPOSITION DESIGNATION ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

03/07/2018 10348 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

03/12/2018 10403 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

03/14/2018 10438 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

03/19/2018 10486 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

03/21/2018 10497 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

03/26/2018 10524 Order re deposition designations for Booker Bellwether case

05/01/2018 10922 Order re deposition designations for Jones Bellwether case

05/10/2018 11064 Order re deposition designations for Jones Bellwether case

05/11/2018 11073 Order re deposition designations for Jones Bellwether case

05/14/2018 11080 Order re deposition designations for Jones Bellwether case

05/31/2018 11313 Order re deposition designations for Jones Bellwether case

08/27/2018 12357 Order re deposition designations for Hyde Bellwether case

09/04/2018 12508 Order re deposition designations for Hyde Bellwether case

09/12/2018 12590 Order re deposition designations for Hyde Bellwether case

09/13/2018 12595 Order re deposition designations for Hyde Bellwether case

09/17/2018 12598 Order re deposition designations for Hyde Bellwether case

04/26/2019 17386 Order re deposition designations for Tinlin Bellwether case

05/03/2019 17513 Order re deposition designations for Tinlin Bellwether case

05/07/2019 17582 Order re deposition designations for Tinlin Bellwether case

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

11/10/2015 269 Amended Stipulated Protective Order re Confidentiality

11/22/2017 8872 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Preemption Grounds

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 58 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

10

MISCELLANEOUS ORDERS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

11/22/2017 8874 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Booker 

Bellwether case

03/12/2018 10404 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Jones 

Bellwether case 

03/30/2018 10587 Order re final trial preparation and setting Final Pretrial 

Conference for Jones Bellwether case.

06/01/2018 11321 Order re final trial preparation and setting Final Pretrial 

Conference for Mulkey Bellwether case. 

06/28/2018 11659 Order re final trial preparation and setting Final Pretrial 

Conference for Kruse Bellwether case.

07/13/2018 11871 Order re final trial preparation and setting Final Pretrial 

Conference for Hyde Bellwether case.

07/26/2018 12007 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Hyde 

Bellwether case

08/02/2018 12061 Order re final trial preparation for Tinlin Bellwether case.

08/17/2018 12202 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Kruse 

Bellwether case

09/12/2018 12589 Order re Preemption of Negligence Per Se for Hyde 

Bellwether case

09/13/2018 12593 Order re reconsideration of Order denying Wisconsin 

Government Rules Rebuttable Presumption of Non-Defect 

for Hyde Bellwether case

10/05/2018 12853 Order re amended schedule for final trial preparation and 

setting Final Pretrial Conference for Mulkey and Tinlin 

Bellwether cases.

10/16/2018 12971 Order re amended schedule for final trial preparation and 

setting Final Pretrial Conference for Tinlin Bellwether case.

04/16/2019 17008 Order re Bard’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Tinlin 

Bellwether case

05/31/2019 18038 Order re Plaintiffs Steering Committee’s Motion to Modify 

CMO 6 to Increase the Common Benefit Assessments

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 59 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC

11

MASTER AND SHORT-FORM PLEADINGS

Date Filed Doc. No. Docket Text

10/30/2015 249 CMO 2 re Setting Deadlines, First Phase of Discovery

12/17/2015 363 CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive Pleadings, Short 

Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

3/17/2016 1108 Amended CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive 

Pleadings, Short Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

4/20/2016 1485 Second Amended CMO 4 re Master Complaint, Responsive 

Pleadings, Short Form Complaint, Waiver, and Answer

12/17/2015 364 Master Complaint for Damages for Individual Claims

11/30/2015 302 Master Short Form Complaint for Damages for Individual 

Claims

12/17/2015 366 Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint

12/17/2015 365 CMO 5 re Plaintiff and Defendant Profile Forms

03/03/2016 927 Amended CMO 5 re Plaintiff and Defendant Profile Forms

03/18/2016 1153-1 Plaintiff Fact Sheet

03/18/2016 1153-2 Defendant Fact Sheet

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 60 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

1 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

79 2/19/2004 Characterization of RNF - Migration resistance; TPR-04-02-02 REV 0 Test protoc

resistance Characterization of RNF - Migration resistance 

354 9/19/2006 PPT re G2; Caudal Movement causes tilting which leads to perforation PPT last m

(custodian Mike Randall) 

443 11/30/2008 G2 and G2X Fracture Analysis Reporting date range 7/1/2005 thru 11/30/2008 447 4/1/2009 Filter - Fracture Analysis (June 2010) 495 3/26/2015 Recovery Filter System; Recovery Filter Overview 504 Eclipse Concept POA 545 Altonaga Deposition, 10/22/2013, Exhibit 03 - 2/26-2/27/2004 E-mail exchange b/w Hudnal

BPV Re. "Case for Caval Centering" 

546 Altonaga Deposition, 10/22/2013, Exhibit 04, Lehmann Deposition 4/2/13, Ex. 14 and Ferarr

Deposition, 01/31/2014, Exhibit 18 - 4/13-4/15/2004 E-mail exchange b/w Lee Lynch, Lehm"Crisis Plan and Supporting Documents for Your Review" 

552 Asch 202, 5/18/1999 Letter from Thomas Kinst, Product Manager of Filters at NMT Medica

Marketing Manager at Bard Canada, Inc. 

553 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 203 - 9/14/2002 Memo from Thomas Kinst to Recove

File Re. Recovery Filter Compassionate Use, Subject: "Conference call with Bard Peripheral 

clinical assessment of Recovery Filter removal #5" 

556 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 207 - 1/26/2001 Letter from Mount Sinai Hospital to 

"Assessment of a New Temporary/Removable IVC Filter" - and - 11/8/2001 Letter from Mo

Board Re. "MSH Reference #01-0161-U 

557 Asch Ex. 208, BPV-17-01-00056765 -766, /28/2000 E-mail from Paul Stagg to Cavagnaro, M

Vierling, and Field Re. "Fwd [2]: compassionate IVC filters" (from Asch) 

559 Asch Exh. 210, BPV-17-01-00052621, 4/17/2002- Email from George Cavagnaro to Doug U

Vierling, dated April 18, 2002 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 61 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

2 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

561 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 212 - Special 510(k) Submission for the Recovery Fil

dated 11/27/2002 

563 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 218 - Information for Use - Recovery Filter System, D567 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 223 - 3/10/2003 Letter from Dr. Asch Re support for 571 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 301 - PowerPoint Presentation entitled BPV Filter Fr

5/6/2008 (colored and 43 pages) 

587 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 318 - Aug. 2010 Article by Nicholson et al. entitled "

of Fracture and Fragment Embolization of Bard Retrievable Vena Cava Filters and Clinical I

Cardiac Perforation and Tamponade" 

588 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 319 - 11/12/2009 E-mail from Bret Baird to Bill Littl

Gin Schulz, with others CC’ed, Re. "Bard Filter Fractures presentation online" 

589 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 320 - ABA Project Agreement with BPV, Inc., dated 590 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 321 - 11/29-12/1/2010 E-mail exchange b/w Bret Ba

"White Paper, Proof 2" 

591 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 322 - Bard Idea POA on the Denali Filter, Project No

August 2009 by Bret Baird 

592 Baird Deposition, 06/09/2016 - Exhibit 325 - 4/28/2010 E-mail from Bret Baird to the Sales 614 Betensky 02/2017 Expert Report - Adverse event reports and monthly sales totals through M631 Betensky Expert Report - DFMEA070044, Rev. 3: G2 Express - Design Failure Mode and E635 Betensky Expert Report - DFMEA070077, Rev. 1: Eclipse (Vail) Filter System - Design Fai

Analysis 

677 SOF Filter Fracture Analysis, August 2010, Reporting range 7/1/05 - 8/31/10, G2, G2X, and 691 Boyle, 02/02/2017, Exhibit 842 - E-mail chain first one from John Van Vleet to Steve Willia

pages 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 62 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

3 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

696 Brauer Deposition, 05/23/2014 - Exhibit 16 - Testimony of Marcia Crosse, Director of Healt

Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives R¬Shortcomings in FDA's Premarket Review, Postmarket Surveillance, and Inspections of DeEstablishments", dated 6/18/2009 

709 Brauer, 08/02/2017, Exhibit 1046 - Bard Simon Nitinol Filter, Postmarket Surveillance Study 

10, 2014 

730 Carr Deposition, 04/17/2013 - Exhibit 01 - Class of Plaintiffs' Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6

Tecum in Case No. 12-80951- CIV-ROSENBAUM 

735 Carr Deposition, 04/17/2013 - Exhibit 07 - Bard Idea POA - Eclipse Anchor Filter, caudal m

E-mail exchange b/w Tracy Estrada and Ed Fitzpatrick 

737 Carr Deposition, 04/17/2013 - Exhibit 09 - 8/22-8/25/2008 E-mail exchange b/w Bret Bard, M

Natalie Wong Re. "[Redacted] Conference call - complaint on fracture" 

755 Carr Deposition, 10/29/2014 - Exhibit 3A - E-mail exchange b/w Hudnall and others from 3/

Accounts Roadshow" 

764 REDACTED Carr Deposition, 11/05/2013 - Exhibit 14 - 5/27/2004 E-mail b/w Greer, Carr, Hudnall, and S

patients and filters", "Stay out of the buffet line", BPVE-01-00010858 -859 

769 Carr Deposition, 12/19/2013 - Exhibit 05 - BPV Meridian Claims Matrix, dated 7/2/2010 770 Carr Deposition, 12/19/2013 - Exhibit 06 - Bard's Denali Concept Product Opportunity Appr

1.0 

800 Carr Deposition, 12/19/2014 - Exhibit 18 - NMT RNF PDT Meeting Notes re Product Devel

01/13/1998 

802 Carr Deposition, 12/19/2014 - Exhibit 20 - NMT R&D Technical Report, RD-RPT-128, 09/0

Report of a Migrated Recovery Filter in the Human Use Experience at Mt. Sinai Hospital 

854 REDACTED Carr Deposition, November 5, 2013 - Exhibit 15 - 12/12/2004 E-mail from Uelmen to Kellee 

12/9/2004 Remedial Action Plan (Revised) SPA-04-12-01 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 63 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

4 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

876 Chanduszko Deposition, 04/23/2015 - Exhibit 17 - Pages 30-44 of Notebook No. 7013, Proje

Fatigue Testing 

905 Ferrara Exh. 19, BPVE-01-00245186 -188, Email chain re G2 Caudal Migrations 12/27/2005 922 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 22 - Chart of Sales and Adverse Events for all co

through Q2/03, according to the MAUDE database. 

923 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 24 - Summary of Sales and Adverse Events for a

01/00 through Q1/04 

924 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 26 - Chart of Sales and Adverse Events for all co

through Q1 2006, according to the MAUDE database. 

925 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 28 - PowerPoint presentation entitled "Filters Co

of 7/31/2007" by Natalie Wong. 

926 REDACTED Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 31 - 8/3/2005 Memo from C. Ganser to T. Ring/

Recovery Filter Adverse Events (Migrations/Fractures) 

927 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 35 - Health Hazard Evaluation Memo from Ciav

"Recovery Filter - Consultant's report", dated 12/17/2004 

931 Ciavarella Deposition, 11/12/2013 - Exhibit 39 - Draft of Updated Health Hazard Evaluation 

to Uelmen, re: "Limb Fractures of Recovery Filter", dated 7/9/2004. 

932 SWOT Analysis; 5/6/2008 PowerPoint presentation entitled "Filter Franchise Review" BPVE945 Cohen Exh. 736, BPVE-01-00074004 - 006, IVC Filters - Covered Stents, Monthly Report A965 Cohen Exh. 757, BPVEFILTER-01-00148562, E-mail dated 12/15/04, with attached FDA Fi

called Temple to speak with Cohen 

991 Cortelezzi, 11/11/2016, Exhibit 586 - 12/23/2005 E-mail from David Ciavarella Re. "G2 Cau

forwarded to Brian Barry on 12/27. Worst case consequence of migrations - accompanied in Would like to now look at G2 complaints. 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 64 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

5 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

992 Cortelezzi, 11/11/2016, Exhibit 588 - 7/16/2005 E-mail from Jason Greer to many Re. "West

situation", detailing Bard's need to respond to Cordis' bringing forward the Maude database t"causing a problem" 

994 D'Ayala Exh. 4, G2 Filter System for Permanent Placement, IFU, G2 Filter System, 10/2006

BPV-17-01-00137425 - 432 (also used with Muehrcke) 

1001 D'Ayala Exh. 13, Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Ba1006 DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 254 - 12/9/2003 Meeting Minutes Memo from Bria

DeCant, Mike Casanova, Robert Carr, and Alex Tessmer Re. "Special Design Review for Re

and 8008)" 

1009 REDACTED DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 258 - 4/6/2004 Memo from Peter Palermo to Doug 

Action Plan - BPV Recovery Nitinol Vena Cava Filter", including the Remedial Action Plan 

Recovery Filter, dated 3/26/2004 

1014 REDACTED DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 264 - 6/11/2004 Memo from Pete Palermo to Doug 

Action Plan - BPV Recovery Filter - Migration" 

1018 REDACTED DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 268 - 9/27/2004 Memo from Pete Palermo to Doug 

Action Plan - BPV Recovery Filter - Migration (SPA-04-05-01)" 

1022 REDACTED DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 274 - Failure Investigation Report on the Recovery 

04-12-01 Rev. 00 

1023 DeCant Deposition, 05/24/2016 - Exhibit 275 - Internal Presentation on the G2 Filter System 

detailing the design modifications, features/benefits, and comparison to the Recovery Filter

1031 REDACTED Deford Deposition, 06/02/2016 - Exhibit 283 - BPV File on The Recovery Filter Migration, i

the 2/12/2004 Migration Meeting 

1036 Deford Deposition, 06/02/2016 - Exhibit 296 - 9/26-9/27/2007 High Importance E-mail exch

Salzmann, John Van Vleet, and John Reviere of BPV, with others CC’ed, Re. "Comments on 

about concern for over-reporting of the SIR guidelines re- classification and removal of the rreplacing consultant John Lehmann 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 65 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

6 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

1053 Edwards Deposition, 01/20/2014 - Exhibit 02 - 3/28/2003 Document RE. "Product Opportun

Recovery Filter", FM070018, Doc No. POA-7081, Version 000 

1062 BPV PowerPoint presentation entitled "BPV/AngioMed New Product Development Review 

2004" 

1130 Ferrara Exh. 3, Email Chain from Regina Busenbark to Robert Ferrara 1-12-2006 1133 Ferrera Deposition, 04/07/2017, Exhibit 11 - Recovery Filter Arm Fracture, Remedial Action 1140 REDACTED Ferrera Deposition, 04/07/2017, Exhibit 25 - Presentation titled Filter-Fracture Analysis 1149 Fuller Deposition, 01/11/2016 - Exhibit 123 - NMT Report Entitled "Line Extension to the S

Filter®/Straight Line System, To Be Referred As: TRADEMARK Retrievable Filter" 

1211 Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 516 - 21 U.S.C.A. § 351, Adultered Drugs and Dev1214 REDACTED Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 523 - Several memos: (1) 12/8/2004 BPV Memo fr

Tim Ring and John Weiland Re. "Monthly Global PV Report - November 2004"; (2) 12/8/20

John McDermott to Tim Ring and John Weiland Re. "Monthly Global PV Report - Novembe

BPV Memo from John McDermott to Tim Ring and John Weiland Re. "Monthly Global PV 

and (4) 2/8/2007 BPV Memo from John McDermott to Tim Ring and John Weiland Re. "M- January 2007 

1216 Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 526 - Regulatory Affairs Manual Re. "Product Rem

STD-002 Rev. 08, dated 10/12/2000 

1219 REDACTED Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 529 - 6/30/2004 Updated Health Hazard Evaluation 

M.D. to Doug Uelmen Re. "Migration of Recovery Filter" 

1220 REDACTED Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 530 - 8/25/2004 E-mail from Avijit Mukherjee to R

CC’ed, Re. "Recovery Filter objective statement", proposing one objective statement for the project, which Hudnall thought sounded "great" 

1221 REDACTED Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 533 - 2/15/2006 Health Hazard Evaluation from Da

Schulz Re. "G2 Inferior Vena Cava Filter - Migration" 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 66 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

7 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

1222 REDACTED Ganser Deposition, 10/11/2016 - Exhibit 534 - PowerPoint Presentation for a meeting to ana

MAUDE data and provide justifications for proposed changes to G2 filter

1295 Graves Deposition, 02/27/2014 - Exhibit 10 - 3/23/2006 E-mail exchange b/w Mickey Grave

FEA on G2, regarding Historical FEA analysis 

1335 Hudnall Deposition, 11/01/2013, Exhibit 21 - Brochure - Recovery Cone Removal System 1336 Hudnall Deposition, 11/01/2013, Exhibit 22 - Recovery G2 Filter System brochure 1337 Hudnall Deposition, 11/01/2013, Exhibit 23 - G2 Brochure (permanent) - Patient Questions & 

website page about G2 Filter System, Indicated for removal, 6/10/2010 

1339 REDACTED Hudnall Deposition, 11/01/2013, Exhibit 29 - 7/6/2004 E-mail exchange b/w Hudnall and Bo

Website Discussion" 

1369 Hudson Deposition, 01/17/2014 - Exhibit 16 - 3/24/2004 E-mail from Alex Tessmer to Charl

Fitzpatrick Re. "Starguide Filter Migration Test Results" 

1370 Hudson Deposition, 01/17/2014 - Exhibit 18 - 12/11/2003 E-mail exchange b/w Brian Hudso

others CC’ed, Re. "Special Design Review for Recovery - Meeting Minutes". 

1383 Hudson Deposition, 01/17/2014, Exhibit 13 - BPV Engineering Test Report - Characterizatio

Migration Resistance in Comparison to Competitive Product - Phase 1, ETR-04-03-02, Rev 0

1500 Kessler Report - August 7, 2010, John Van Vleet emailed BPV President Jim Beasley, Mark

and V.P. of QA Gin Schulz 

1517 EVEREST Track wise and MAUDE PowerPoint, BPV-17-01-00188507 1568 Kessler Report - September 30, 2010 memo from Brett Baird to Eclipse DRT, with the subje

Market Design Review/Marketing Summary,” stated: “The objective of the Eclipse Filter proG2 X filter surface finish..." 

1578 ETR-06-28-29, revision 0, project #8049, Caudal Migration Test Method Development and G

Report, 11/27/06, BPVE-01-00789532 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 67 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

8 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

1580 REDACTED Kessler Report -July 12, 2004 email from Bard’s VP of Regulatory Sciences Chris Ganser, to 

Weiland, attached “an executive summary of Recovery Filter adverse events (migration and 

1594 REDACTED Lehmann Deposition, 04/02/2013 - Exhibit 08 - 2/16/2005 E-mail from Charlie Simpson to H

Venous Forum - Mary Protocor presented an evaluation of filter related findings from the Ma

1612 Lehmann Deposition, 08/07/2014, Exhibit 08 - Updated Health Hazard Evaluation Memo fro

re: "Limb Fractures of Recovery Filter", dated 7/9/2004 

1613 Lehmann Deposition, 08/07/2014, Exhibit 09 - 6/10/2004 E-mail exchange b/w Ciavarella an

"Recovery Filter/Detachments" 

1616 Little Deposition, 06/27/2016 - Exhibit 2003 - "Patient Questions & Answers" Brochure for t1617 Little Deposition, 06/27/2016 - Exhibit 2004 - Chart entitled "EVEREST/Cook Celect Clinic1618 Little Deposition, 06/27/2016 - Exhibit 2005 - 4/27/2010 BPV Memo from Filter Marketing 

naming", detailing the name rational for the Eclipse and Denali

1621 Little Deposition, 06/27/2016 - Exhibit 2009 - "Fractures of a Nitinol IVC Filter" presentatio

Nicholson on www.CRTonline.org, in which he reviewed a single center experience on fractRecovery and G2 filters

1643 McDermott Deposition, 02/05/2014 - Exhibit 02 - Bard's Product Performance Specification 

Filter and Femoral Delivery System, PPS No. PPS070016 Rev. 0 

1680 REDACTED McDonald Deposition, 07/29/2016 - Exhibit 21 - 7/13/2015 Warning Letter from the FDA re

Inspection of the C.R. Bard facility in NY and the 11/18/2014-1/5/2015 Inspection of the BP

1740 Modra Deposition, 06/06/2014 - Exhibit 5 - 1/18/2010 E-mail from Bret Baird (Marketing M

Sales Team list serve (TPE-PV Sales-DG) Re. "Important: Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Launch 

1742 Modra Deposition, 06/06/2014 - Exhibit 7 - Product Opportunity Appraisal for the G2 Platin

Rev. 1.0, Revised on 5/5/2009 

1763 Modra, 01/26/2017, Exhibit 771A - Chart entitled "Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysi

Filter - SNF/SL Filter Sets (DFMEA070042 Rev. 1) 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 68 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

9 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

1787 Orms Deposition, 08/16/2016 - Exhibit 13 - 11/9/2010 E-mail Thread from Chris Smith Re. 

Business" 

1788 Orms Deposition, 08/16/2016 - Exhibit 14 - 10/2/2010 E-mail Thread from Jeffrey Pellicio R

Commercialization Plan" 

1817 Raji-Kubba Deposition, 07/18/2016 - Exhibit 301 - 5/14/2009 E-mail from Bill Edwards to R

Randall Re. "Tomorrow" 

1821 Raji-Kubba Deposition, 07/18/2016 - Exhibit 305 - 11/12/2009 E-mail from Bret Baird to Bi

and Gin Schulz 

1822 Raji-Kubba Deposition, 07/18/2016 - Exhibit 307 - 1/21/2010 Bard Memo from Jeffrey Pelli1823 Raji-Kubba Deposition, 07/18/2016 - Exhibit 308 - 1/4/2010 E-mail from Gin Schulz to Bea

Vleet, Doherty, and Little Re. "Potential Actions" 

1825 Raji-Kubba Deposition, 07/18/2016 - Exhibit 310 - 9/1/2009 E-mail from Mike Randall Re. 

Report.doc" 

1861 Only admitted 

Pgs. 38 & 70 

Randall, 01/18/2017, Exhibit 634 - Binder labeled "Meridian Design History File DHF, Vol. 

1912 Romney Deposition, 09/07/2016 - Exhibit 2039 3/16/2006 E-mail from Jason Greer to Janet 1926 Romney, 01/18/2017, Exhibit 2061 - 8/6/2014 E-mail from Schyler Smith, Field Manager fo

Idaho-Montana, to Kim Romney, Subject redacted, relaying that a redacted doctor had placeyear and discovered at retrieval that an arm fractured, which imaging confirmed had occurred 

placement, and was now wondering if he should try to remove the filter or leave it in. Van VTreratola in a high importance e-mail on 8/7, requesting that he contact the doctor on Bard's 

1940 REDACTED Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 11 - Chart of Adverse Events and Deaths for all com

Evaluation through Q3 2005 and from

1941 REDACTED Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 12 - 11/30/2005 E-mail exchange b/w Gin Schulz a

G2 v. Maude and attachments, Spread Sheet - Filter Sales (IMS Q1 '00 to Q4 '04, + Trend Q

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 69 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

10 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

1944 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 15 - 5/19/2006 E-mail from Natalie Wong to Gin Sc

attaching the PowerPoint Presentation on "Recovery (Gen 1) Fracture Slides" (included in ex

Report (not included), updated to be current as of 5/18/2006 for the Management Review 

1945 Schulz Exh. 16, BPVEFILTER-01-00008798 - 851, 10/1/2006 E-mail from Natalie Wong to 

Docs" 

1946 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 17 - 2/2/2006 E-mail from Gin Schulz to Several Re1947 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 19 - 5/10/2006 E-mail from Natalie Wong Re. "FDA 1948 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 2 - 1/31/2006 E-mail from Gin Schulz to Mickey G

Re. "Caudal" 

1949 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 21 - 6/28/2011 Email Chain from Brian Hudson to K

Modra Re Talking Points Including attachment 

1950 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 4 - Meeting Summary of the IVC Filter Focus Grou

6/1/2006 in Chicago, IL at Hilton O'Hare 

1951 Schulz Deposition, 01/30/2014 - Exhibit 5 - 1/31/2005 Memo from Peter Palermo to Kerry C

2005" 

2045 Sullivan Deposition, 09/16/2016 - Exhibit 431 - Marketing Brochure - G2 Filter System for P2048 REDACTED Sullivan Deposition, 09/16/2016 - Exhibit 437 - Document entitled "Failure Investigations/R2049 Sullivan Deposition, 09/16/2016 - Exhibit 439 - 11/17/2004 Updated Health Hazard Evaluati

Ciavarella, M.D. to Doug Uelmen, Re: "Limb Fractures of Recovery Filter" 

2052 Wong Exh. 546, BPVE-01-01239757 - 775, Draft of PowerPoint Presentation entitled "G2 an

Analysis", dated 11/30/2008 

2057 REDACTED Sullivan, 11/03/2016, Exhibit 442 - Recovery Filter Migration Remedial Action Plan SPA-04

including the Lehmann Report and Dr. Ciavarella's 12/17/2004 HHE titled "Recovery Filter 

2059 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 02 - Project Status Report Form for the Recovery 

initiated 7/1/2002 with the goal to "Investigate Migration"; FM0700160, Rev. 1 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 70 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

11 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

2061 Tessmer 5, BPVE-01-00000230, 2/4/2004 E-mail from Alex Tessmer to Several Re. "Update

Loop Test Fixture" 

2062 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 07 - 1/14/2004 Memo from Rob Carr to File Re. "

Minutes Response" 

2063 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 08 - 2/25/2004 E-mail from Alex Tessmer to Robe

Hudson Re. "Filter Migration Test Results 

2065 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 11 - BPV Engineering Test Report - Characterizat

Migration Resistance When Legs are Crossed or Hooks Removed - Phase 2, ETR-04-03-10, 

2068 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 17 - 6/8/2004 "High" Importance E-mail from Ale

Chanduszko, and Hudson Re. "Filter Improvement DOE" 

2069 Tessmer Deposition, 06/12/2013 - Exhibit 19 - 8/26/2004 E-mail from Alex Tessmer to Robe

Mukherjee Re. "Corporate Presentations" 

2090 Tillman, 08/04/2017, Exhibit 1064 - NMT PowerPoint, Cprdos, 06/14/2000 2105 Trerotola, 01/20/2017, Exhibit 692 - 4/30/2015 E-mail from Dr. Trerotola to John Van Vleet

from Forbes Magazine about ALN filters entitled "Effect of a Retrievable IVC Filter Plus AnAnticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent PE: A Randomized Clinic Trial". Per Trerotola, maybe not good for the industry". The article was discussed through 5/4, as they were meetinarticles before meeting with JVV. 

2149 Vierling Deposition, 05/11/2016 - Exhibit 231 - 12/13/2001 E-mail from Carol Vierling to ka

Stagg, and Connie Murray Re. "RF Protocol" 

2153 Vierling Deposition, 05/11/2016 - Exhibit 236 - 6/3/2002 Memo from Lynn Buchanan-Kopp 

History File Recovery Filter Project Team Re. "Project Phase Clarification", defining the 3 pfilter project (I. Permanent; II. Intraprocedural Removal; and III. Long-Term Removable), as team meeting on 5/20/2002 

2217 Williamson Deposition, 09/07/2016 - Exhibit 105 - Cover page entitled "Attachment 1.14", f

1/23/2015 Memo from Ludwig to Chad Modra Re. "IVC Filters Retrospective Review", deta

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 71 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

12 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

of 939 filter complaints from 1/2013 to 1/2015, with a chart detailing whether the MDR classany complaints 

2238 Wilson, 01/31/2017, Exhibit 801 - E-mail string, Subject: Meridian Commercialization Plan 2243 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 537 - 4/23/2004 E-mail from John Lehmann to Carr 

data set for statistician" 

2244 REDACTED Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 538 - 12/17/2004 Health Hazard Evaluation from Da

Uelmen Re. "Recovery Filter - Consultant's Report", detailing the 76 reports of the Recovery 

injury and 10 deaths of the 20,827 units sold during the reporting period 

2245 Wong Exh. 540, Recovery Gen 1, Fracture and Migration Complaint Update, 6-20-2006 2245 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 540 - Confidential PowerPoint Presentation entitled 

Fracture and Migration Complaint Update," dated 6/20/2006 

2246 Wong Exh. 541, BPVE-01-01512188, Email from Natalie Wong to Gin Schulz Re RNF Frac

2006 

2247 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 542 - 12/2/2009 E-mail exchange b/w Sandy Kerns a

"Filter Fractures" 

2248 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 543 - PAT PowerPoint Presentation entitled "G2 Cau

dated 3/2/2006, which Wong circulated via e-mail on 3/2/2006 to several for the presentation 

2249 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 544 - 5/18/2006 Natalie Wong meeting documents, e

Investigation" with attachments of G2 Caudal Report 05.18.06 and Caudal Pre-PAT minutes 

2250 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 545 - BPV's Failure Investigation Report on the G2 

FIR-06-01-01, unsigned and forwarded by Wong to Gin Schulz for her review, in anticipatio

2251 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 547 - 4/10/2006 High Importance E-mail from Cindi 

Schulz, and McDermott Re. "FW: FDA Request for Information" 

2252 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 548 - 9/25/2007 E-mail from John Lehmann to John 

Reviere Re. "EVEREST FSR rev H and supporting redlines 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 72 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

13 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

2253 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 549 - 5/27/2004 E-mail from Natalie Wong to Doug 

Stats" 

2254 Wong Deposition, 10/18/2016 - Exhibit 552 - 2/17/2006 Memo from Mickey Graves and Na

"Recovery Filter (Generation 1) Product Assessment Team Minutes - Fractures" 

3262 REDACTED Complaint File - 03/09/2010, 263280, G2 - RF310F, 2907 Detachment of device or device co3270 REDACTED Complaint File - 03/30/2010, 266286, G2 - RF310F, 2907 Detachment of device or device co3304 REDACTED Complaint File - 07/28/2010, 282326, Eclipse - EC500J, 2907 Detachment of device or devic

Filter Limb(s) 

3572 Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for C.R. Bard, Inc. for the fiscal year ende3573 Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q for C.R. Bard, Inc. for the quarterly period 

2017 

4327 REDACTED 2/10/06 monthly meeting - redesign due to caudal migration (excludes last 4 pages) 4328 Ganser Exh. 517 Device Labeling Guidance, General Program Memorandum 4330 Asch Deposition, 05/02/2016 - Exhibit 206, July 21, 1999 letter to Dr. Freeland from Dr. Asc4332 Updated CV of Murray Asch 4392 Truthfulness and Accuracy Statement Vierling Deposition, Exhibit 227 4409 G2 Brochure 2 4412 Email from: Gin Schulz to Kevin Shiffrin regarding Recovery Filter Limb Fractures with atta

detach 

4414 Email from Brian Reinkensmeyer to Baird cc Pellicio and Randall re "Filter study Idea" 4415 Email from Mike Randall to Carr and Raji-Kubba re "Misclassified??" 4416 Bill Little email re Eclipse Filter Naming 4420 REDACTED Meridian Vena Cava Filter and Jugular Delivery System Product Performance Specification 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 73 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

14 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

4428 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Ad 4430 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Brochure 4433 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Patient Questions & Answers 4438 G2 Express Vena Cava Filter Brochure 4454 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Concept POA, Revision 2 4455 Vail Vena Cava Filter DIS 4456 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Product Performance Specification (PPS) 4457 Vail Filter System DFMEA 4459 Eclipse Vena Cava Filter Jugular Vein Approach IFU 4467 8/12/2011 email from Mike Randall to Joni Creal re Corp approval needed for Cleveland Cli

PowerPoint slides re Filter Fixation and Migration: Forces and Design 

4468 6/10/2011 email from Mike Randall re Meridian Presentation for SSM 2011 4469 Data Source Evaluation memo from Natalie Wong to Quality Systems Coordinator, October 4486 G2 Express Project Plan FM0700150 Rev 6 1-30-07 4499 Meridian Vena Cava Filter vs. Eclipse Vena Cava Filter4504 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 4/8/09 4507 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 7/9/09 4509 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 10/8/09 4512 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 1/1/10 4514 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 3/8/10 4515 Only admitted 

pgs. 12 & 13 

Monthly Management Report, dated 4/8/10 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 74 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

15 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

4519 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 8/9/10 4522 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 11/8/10 4528 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 5/9/11 4532 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 9/9/11 4533 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 10/10/11 4534 REDACTED Monthly Management Report, dated 11/8/11 4552 Decant Deposition Exhibit 273, Failure Investigation Report, Recovery Filter Migration FIR4554 NMT Medical, BSC Presentation, 5/22/2000 4565 FRE 1006 Chart - Plaintiff's Compilation Complaint Record Detail 4595 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 05 - Medical Monitor Meeting Minutes, August 

Hotel, Worcester, MA, Version 1.0 (6 pages), signed 12/16/05. *only the last page is bates st

4596 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 06 - Everest Clinical Trial, Medical Monitor Mee

point, June 19, 2006, Revision B 

4599 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 09 - Summary of Filter Movement, 5mm or grea

Summary Report EVEREST 

4600 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 10 - Device Observation Table (as of 10/23/20064601 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 11 - Listing of Device Observations, Final Clinic

EVEREST 

4602 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 12 - Adjudication Manual of Operations, EVERE4603 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 13 - Recovery G2 Filter System - Femoral and Ju

Delivery Kits, Tradition 510(k), October 31, 2007 

4604 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 14 - Article entitled "Technical Success and Safe

Filter in a Prospective, Multicenter Study", Nov. 2009 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 75 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

16 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

4607 Kandarpa Deposition, 07/19/2018 - Exhibit 17 - Memorandum dated June 21, 2006 Subject: 

Failure Investigation Team Agenda, From Natalie Wong 

4617 VanVleet Deposition, 09/26/2016 - Exhibit 496 - Bard Recovery G2 EVEREST Final Study 4785 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 2: Email, from Tim Hug, 3/19/10, Re: Adversity-H

respond (6 pages) 

4786 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 3: Email, from Tim Hug, 4/27/10, Re: Flair-April 

pages) 

4794 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 11: Email from Tim Hug to Hans Yentz (and others

Accounts-Eclipse Transition (2 pages) 

4795 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 12: G2 Filter product brochure (4 pages) 4797 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 14: Email from Tim Hug to Nine Aghakhan (and ot

FW: G2 X not available for order (2 pages) 

4798 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 15: Email from Bret Baird to TPW-PV Sales-DG, 4

was the last time... (2 pages) 

4800 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 17: Email from David Ciavarella to Brian Berry (an

Subject: FW: G2 Caudal Migrations (2 pages) 

4804 Only admitted 

1st email, redacted other emails 

Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 21: Email from Mary Christine Starr to Matt FermaRE: Technician Registration (4 pages) 

4806 Only admitted 

pg. 2 

Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 23: Email from Cynthia L. Haas to Matt Fermanich

Expired product (7 pages) 

4809 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 26: Email from Tim Hug to Matt Fermanich, 12/13/

Discontinued (2 pages) 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 76 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

17 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

4812 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 29: BPV Memo from Filter Marketing to Bill Little

naming (2 pages) 

4820 Fermanich Deposition, 3/17/17 - Exhibit 37: Health Hazard Evaluation memo from David C

2/15/06, Re: G2 Inferior Vena Cava Filter - Migration (3 pages) 

4842 Hug Deposition, 8/23/17 - Exhibit 1117: Email to Nine Aghakhan from Tim Hug, 3/8/11, Su

Filter Backorder (2 pages) 

4893 GX2 Risk Analysis 4894 Eclipse Risk Analysis 4895 Meridian Risk Analysis 4896 Caudal Migration Testing Meridian and Optease 4897 G2 Express Product Performance Specification, PPS-8058 4938 BPV Consulting Request Form 5001 Dec. 2004 Dear Doctor Letter 5003 Feb. 8, 2005 Conference FDA and BPV re Recovery Retrievable (K031328) 5017 Aug. 5, 1999 R&D Technical Report RNF Migration Study, Design Verification (RD-RPT-15022 RD-LNB-087 Laboratory Notebook 5037 ETR-05-02-02 (Effects of Changes to the Recovery Filter & The Femoral Delivery System o

on FEA Analysis) 

5126 Guidance for Industry and FDA Reviewers/Staff - Guidance for Cardiovascular Intravascula

Submissions 

5126 Guidance for Industry and FDA Reviewers/Staff - Guidance for Cardiovascular Intravascula

Submissions 

5164 July 8, 2003 Fax IMPRA to FDA re Recovery Retrievable (K031328)

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 77 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

18 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

5169 REDACTED Apr. 25, 2003 Recovery Retrievable Abbreviated 510(k) (K031328) 5177 Nov. 27, 2002 FDA Clearance Letter re Recovery Permanent (K022236) (Substantial Equiva5178 Oct. 25, 2002 Letter IMPRA to FDA re Recovery (K022236) 5179 Oct. 4, 2002 Letter FDA to IMPRA re Recovery (K022236) 5182 Aug. 30, 2002 Letter IMPRA to FDA re Recovery (K022236) 5187 Aug. 5, 2002 Letter FDA to IMPRA re Recovery (K022236) 5189 July 10, 2002 IMPRA Recovery Permanent Special 510(k) (K022236)5193 Feb. 28, 2005 Letter BPV to FDA re FDA AI re Recovery Retrievable (K031328) 5195 Nov. 30, 2004 Letter FDA to BPV re Recovery IFU and DDL, dear doctor letter5196 Oct. 5, 2004 Letter BPV to FDA re Recovery IFU and DDL 5197 July 25, 2003 FDA Clearance Letter re Recovery Retrievable (K031328) (Substantial Equiva5232 RD-RPT-116 (RNF Migration Study) (Test report for RD-SOP-035.02) RD-RPT-116 5233 RD-SOP-054.00 (Recovery Filter Endura TEC Fatigue Testing SOP NMT) 5234 RD-RPT-099 (Recovery Filter Endura TEC Fatigue Testing Report NMT) 5238 Slides from Bariatric Surgeons Panel Meeting on Feb. 12, 2005 5239 Jan. 21, 2005 Conference FDA and BPV re DDL and Recovery Retrievable (K031328) 5247 May 11, 2005 BPV began distributing DCL 5252 ETR-04-03-02 (RNF v. Competitive Product -- migration resistance) 5268 NMT's 510(k) (K963016) for modifications to the SNF(submitted by Hogan & Hartson) 5272 Nov. 23, 2009 BPV's Eclipse Filter System Special 510(k) (K093659) 5273 Jan. 14, 2010 FDA Clearance Letter Eclipse Filter (K093659) (Substantial Equivalence) 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 78 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

19 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

5283 G2 IFU (Femoral) PK5250500 Rev. 0 01/08 5290 TD-00456 (EVEREST Study Final Report) 5296 G2 Filter Product Performance Specification, v.2 5301 ETR-05-01-06 Animal Model Evaluation of Recovery Filter G1A Femoral System Report 5302 TPR 05-01-13 G1A Recovery Filter Femoral System Design Verification and Validation Pro5303 ETR-05-02-05 (G2® DV&V summary testing) 5304 ETR 05-02-11 G1A Recovery Filter Femoral System Chronic Animal Study Report 5315 Phase 2 Design Review G1A Recovery Filter Femoral Delivery System, BPV-17-01-0012125316 Phase 3 Design Review (Design Review 3 & 4) G1A Recovery Filter Femoral Delivery Syst

00121256 -286 

5322 Nov. 2, 2005 FDA Grants Full Approval of G2 Everest Study (G051304) 5323 Aug. 8, 2005 FDA Grants BPV Conditional Approval for G2 Everest Study (G050134) 5324 July 8, 2005 BPV's original IDE submission re G2 Everest Study (G050134) 5325 REDACTED Oct. 3, 2005 Letter BPV to FDA re G2 Everest Study (G051034) and Conditional Approval 5329 REDACTED June 21, 2006 Letter BPV to FDA re G2 Everest Study (G051304) IDE Supplement5333 Feb. 2, 2007 Letter BPV to FDA re G2 Everest Study (G051304) Annual Progress Report5334 Sept. 21, 2007 Letter FDA to BPV Questions re G2 Everest Study (G051304) 5335 Aug. 23, 2007 Letter BPV to FDA re G2 Everest Study (G051304) Annual Progress Report5336 Oct. 25, 2007 Letter BPV to FDA re Responses to FDA re G2 Everest Study (G051304), BP5339 Jan. 15, 2008 FDA Clearance Letter G2 Filter Retrievable (K073090) (Substantial Equivalen5340 Oct. 31, 2007 BPV's G2 Filter Retrievable Traditional 510(k) (K073090) 5343 Aug. 29, 2005 FDA Clearance Letter re G2 Permanent (K050558) (Substantial Equivalence) 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 79 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

20 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

5344 July 28, 2005 Letter FDA to BPV re AI re Modified Recovery (K050558) 5348 Mar. 30, 2005 Letter FDA to BPV re Modified Recovery (K050558) 5349 Mar. 2, 2005 BPV's Modified Recovery Filter Special 510(k) (K050558) 5350 REDACTED June 3, 2005 Letter BPV to FDA re Modified Recovery conversion Traditional 510(k) (K0505352 Aug. 10, 2005 Letter BPV to FDA Responses to AI re G2 (K050558) 5353 Nov. 25, 2005 FDA Clearance Letter G2 Filter - Jugular (K052578) (Substantial Equivalence5354 Sept. 19, 2005 BPV's G2 Filter - Jugular Subclavian Delivery Kit Special 510(k) (K052578) 5361 Sept. 25, 2006 BPV's G2 Filter - Femoral Delivery Kit Special 510(k) (K062887) 5362 Oct. 26, 2006 FDA Clearance Letter G2 Filter - Femoral Delivery Kit (K062887) 5368 July 30, 2008 FDA Clearance Letter G2 Express Filter (K080668) (Substantial Equivalence) 5373 Mar. 7, 2008 BPV's G2 Express Filter Special 510(k) (K080668) 5376 Oct. 31, 2008 FDA Clearance Letter G2X Filter (K082305) Substantial Equivalence 5379 Aug. 12, 2008 BPV's G2X Filter Special 510(k) (K082305) 5384 G2 Express Feasibility Acute Animal Study Report TR-07-05-18 5385 G2 Express Filter Arm Fatigue Comparison TR-07-07-04 5483 sopq1417500 Rev 1 -- Statistical Complaint Trending Procedure PMA Related, BPV-17-01-5486 Dec. 17, 2009 Letter from BPV to FDA re Eclipse Filter System Response to FDA Question5488 June 21, 2010 Letter from BPV to FDA re Eclipse Filter System Response to FDA Question5523 ETR-04-03-05 (RNF Characterization testing comparing GFO v. NMT manufactured filters) 

02) ETR-04-03-05, Rev. 0 (GFO and NMT Manufactured Recovery; Filters Migration Resis1) 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 80 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

21 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

5526 TPR-04-02-02 (Protocol for RNF Migration Testing v. Competitive) Test Protocol Number T

Characterization of the Recovery Filter (RF) - Migration Resistance 

5534 Picture of Clot from Feb. 2004 RNF Migration 5536 Meeting Summary from Filter Expert Panel June 1, 2006 5537 June 2006 Expert Panel Meeting Slides 5539 Only admitted 

pgs. 12 -32 

G2 Caudal Migration Failure Investigation Report Aug. 4, 2005 G2 Filter Caudal Migration 

Report (FIR-06-01-01) G2 Caudal Migration Failure Investigation Report

5560 Standard Operating Procedures / Division Operating Procedures -- CQA-STD-R002 Rev 11, 

776. 

5561 Standard Operating Procedures / Division Operating Procedures -- CQA-STD-R002 Rev 12, 

806 

5563 Standard Operating Procedures / Division Operating Procedures -- CQA-STD-R002 REv 14 5565 Standard Operating Procedures / Division Operating Procedures -- RA-STD-002 Rev 10 5586 May 20, 2010 BPV's Eclipse Filter Special 510(k) (K101431) 5587 June 18, 2010 Letter FDA to BPV re FDA AI Demand re Eclipse (K101431) 5588 Dec. 15, 2009 Letter FDA to BPV re FDA Al Demand re Eclipse (K093659) 5589 June 22, 2010 - FDA Clearance Letter for Eclipse Filter (K101431) (Substantial Equivalence5593 Aug. 14, 2009 Conference FDA and BPV re future Eclipse Filter 510(k) 5602 REDACTED FDA CONTACT REPORT January 7 2010 FINAL 5612 REDACTED Nov. 17, 2009 (Filters and future submissions) 5691 Only admitted 

pgs. 12-32 

BPV FDA 483 Update Response March 26, 2015, BPV-17-01-00200156 - 338 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 81 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

22 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

5706 Only admitted 

pgs. 48-61 

September 3 2015 Update Response to Warning Letter issued July 13 2015.pdf 

5851 TD-04698 Retrospective IVC Filter Review.pdf 5872 FDA Warning Close Out Letter5874 Bard filter rate information December 2016 5877 1996 Memo from Veronica Price 5879 April 11, 2006 Letter to FDA re Caudal Migration 5880 March 23, 2006 Letter to FDA re G2 Caudal Migration 5881 May 11, 2006 Letter to FDA re Caudal Migration 5905 Jan. 22, 2005 Email to FDA 5923 REDACTED September 2010 Letter to Clinicians re FDA PHN 5929 TR-07-12-01 (Test Report re G2 Express DV& V Flat Plate Fatigue and Corrosion) 5931 G2X (Jugular) 2009.10 – PK5100070 rev. 5 IFU 5942 January 7, 2010 FDA PowerPoint Presentation 5946 QMBR—July 2006 5949 ETR-06-05-02 (Test report re G2® Clot Trapping Efficiency) 5967 G2 Risk Benefit Analysis (RBA-0003, Rev. 0) 5970 HHE re G2 Caudal Migration February 15, 2006 5991 FM1287100 Rev. 5 (MDR Reportability Guidelines) 5994 TD-04316 Nov. 4, 2015 FDA and Bard Teleconference 5995 TD-04326 Oct. 26, 2015 FDA and Bard Teleconference 6013 Dec. 27, 2010 Letter from BPV to FDA re Meridian 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 82 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

23 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

6046 August 28, 2006 EVEREST Medical Monitor Adjudication Meeting Minutes 6061 Aug. 22, 2005 Internal FDA memo reviewing BPV's Responses to FDA Al re G2 (K050558) 6064 July 26, 2005 Internal FDA memo re BPV Responses to FDA AI re Modified Recovery (K06075 Nov. 10, 2004 FDA Internal Memo re Dear Doctor Letter6082 FDA_PRODUCTION_00001288 -- July 2, 2003 Email chain FDA and BPV re Recovery Re6089 Product Development Cycle PPT 6842 

 *** 

ACR-SIR-SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filter PPrevention of Pulmonary Embolism. Revised 2016. Note: “Admitted for the limited purpose to establish knowledge to the medical community, 

matter asserted.” 

6892 Binkert CA, Drooz AT, Caridi JG, Sands MJ, Bjarnason H, Lynch FC, Rilling WS, Zambuto 

Venbrux AC, Kaufman JA. Technical success and safety of retrieval of the G2 filter in a prosstudy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Nov;20(11):1449-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.08.007. 

6991 FDA Safety - Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters: Initial Communication: Risk of Adverse Eve

08/09/2010. 

6992 FDA Safety Communications, Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters. 05/06/2014

http://wayback.archiveit.org/7993/20170722215731/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices

6993 FDA Safety Communications, Removing Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Initial Com

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm221676.htm

7312 

 *** 

SIR Guidelines for IVC Filters Note: “Admitted for the limited purpose to establish knowledge to the medical community, 

matter asserted.” 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 83 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

24 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

7411 2008 Surgeon General's Call to Action re PE and DVT 7753 2014 Draft FDA Guidance re Benefit-Risk Factors When Determining Substantial Equivalen

Notifications 510k with Different Technological Characteristics

7758 2014 FDA Guidance re 510k Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications 7771 Braun Vena Tech LP Femoral – October 2010 7787 Cordis Optease Femoral Jugular Antecubital - 2013 7795 Screenshot from FDA, MAUDE - Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience, availa

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm 

7960 IVC Filters Clinical Overview 7961 Corporate Quality Assurance Manual, Standard for Product Complaint Handling 7962 Corporate Quality Assurance Manual, Standard for Medical Device Reporting 7900 Demonstrative depiction of sales of bard’s retrievable IVC filters 8325 Eclipse IFU 02.2010 PK5100600 Rev. 1 8358 TR-09-10-15 -- Eclipse Flat Plate Fatigue and Corrosion Examination of the Vail (Eclipse) F8359 TR-09-10-16 DV&V Eclipse Filter Arm Fatigue Comparison Study (Project #8113) 8362 Eclipse Filter Patient Questions & Answers 8368 TP-09-10-15 Rev. 0 - Eclipse DV&V Flat Plate Fatigue and Corrosion Test Protocol 8482 Bard IVC Filter G3 Design/Development Timeline 8546 Draft Test Report re Rotary Beam Fatigue of Nitinol Wire 8572 G3 Meeting Minutes Nov 27, 2007 8574 TR 09-10-10, Test Report Cyclic Fatigue Testing of Electropolished Vail Filter Wire 8575 TP 09-10-10, Test Protocol Cyclic Fatigue Testing of Electropolished Vail Filter Wire 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 84 of 85
In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC 

SUGGESTION OF REMAND AND TRANSFER ORDER (SECOND) 

Exhibit 2 – Admitted Exhibit List from Bellwether Trials and Documents No Longer Subject to Pro

25 

Trial 

Ex. No. Notes Description 

8583 G3 Project Status Report April 19, 2006 8837 Defendants' Exhibit 10 to Joint Report on Determining Filter Type 9080 10/7/07 Email from Dr. Lehman 

Document deemed no longer subject to the Protective Order 

Trial Ex. 

No. Notes Description 

908 Ciavarella Deposition, 03/01/2011 - Exhibit 12 - 5/11/2005 "Dear Colleague" letter from BPV 

system 

Case 4:19-cv-06986-JST Document 3 Filed 10/17/19 Page 85 of 85