Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02520/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02520-2/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 

Gilbert S. Placencia and Theresa Placencia,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

I-Flow Corporation, a Delaware 

corporation, et al., 

Defendant.

No. CV10-2520 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 This is a diversity-jurisdiction product liability case brought under state law. 

Plaintiffs allege that Gilbert Placencia was injured by Defendants’ pain pump, which was 

installed in his shoulder after arthroscopic surgery. The Court held a discovery 

conference call with the parties on May 24, 2012. Following the call, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

provided the Court with copies of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices that were 

addressed during the call. The Court will grant Defendants’ requests for a protective 

order. 

A. DOJ Investigation. 

 Plaintiffs seek discovery of documents and other communications that have passed 

between Defendants and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) pursuant to a subpoena 

served by DOJ in 2010, some five years after the events at issue in this case. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel explained during the conference call that such discovery would be relevant for 

this reason: “if in any responses that [Defendants] might have given to the Department of 

Case 2:10-cv-02520-DGC Document 115 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 3
‐ 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 

Justice there is any information that goes to the veracity of [Defendants’] claims in 

defending the case, that is going to be clearly relevant in the action.” Plaintiffs’ counsel 

further stated that the discovery would provide “an opportunity to explore the credibility 

of [Defendants’] witnesses” by comparing their answers in deposition in this case to “any 

answers or responses that [Defendants] might have given to the Department of Justice.” 

When asked to describe the nature of the DOJ investigation, Plaintiffs’ counsel said “it is 

hard for us to say exactly what the nature and scope is because we haven’t been able to 

get any discovery from the defendants.” 

 In other words, Plaintiffs wish to conduct discovery into communications in a DOJ 

investigation they cannot clearly describe because of the mere possibility that such 

communications might undermine Defendants’ credibility in this case in some undefined 

way. This is too speculative a basis for the discovery. Plaintiffs did not dispute defense 

counsel’s assertion during the conference call that Defendants have produced more than 

13,000 documents, provided more than 65 hours of company witness depositions, and 

responded to 1,331 written discovery requests in this and similar product liability cases 

over Defendants’ pain pumps. The Court will not permit further expensive discovery on 

the mere hope that something helpful might turn up. The Court finds that “the burden 

[and] expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to obtain 

relevant information through other discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). 

B. Subsequent Stock Sales. 

 The Court reaches the same conclusion on Plaintiffs’ proposed inquiry into sales 

of stock by I-Flow executives that occurred more than one year after the pain pump at 

issue in this case was sold and used in Mr. Placencia’s surgery. When asked why such 

later stock sales might be relevant, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that communications related 

to the sales “may very well discuss the company’s conduct at an earlier period of time.” 

Again, Plaintiffs speculate. There is no clear connection between the stock sales and the 

issues in this case, and the Court will not permit discovery into those sales on the mere 

Case 2:10-cv-02520-DGC Document 115 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

possibility that something relevant might be found. The Court’s obligation to control 

“the extent of discovery,” and to do so in a way that achieves “the just, speedy, and 

inexpensive determination” of this case, compels the Court to conclude that speculative 

discovery – searching marginally relevant haystacks in hopes of finding a relevant needle 

or two – should not be permitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 26(b)(2)(C). 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants are granted protective orders with respect to 

the depositions and related written discovery discussed during the conference call with 

the Court on May 24, 2012. 

 Dated this 24th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-02520-DGC Document 115 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 3