Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01516-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated
Defendant
C R Bard Incorporated
Defendant
Judy Ann LaLonde
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDY ANN LALONDE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C R BARD INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01516-DAD-BAM

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REOPEN GENERAL 

DISCOVERY

(Doc. Nos. 27, 28)

This case was transferred to this Court on October 17, 2019, from a multidistrict litigation 

proceeding (“MDL”) before Senior District Judge David G. Campbell in the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona involving personal injury cases brought as a result of 

certain inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters manufactured by Defendants C R Bard Incorporated and 

Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated (“Defendants”). (Doc. Nos. 3, 4.) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Judy Ann LaLonde’s (“Plaintiff”) request to reopen 

general discovery regarding Defendants’ IVC filters. (Doc. No. 27.) On December 13, 2019, the 

parties submitted a Joint Scheduling Report stating that there was a dispute between the parties as 

to the scope of discovery in this action, as Defendants contended discovery should be limited 

solely to case-specific facts and Plaintiff sought to obtain discovery regarding studies published 

after the close of fact discovery in the MDL. (Doc. No. 21 at 5-6.) The Court held a conference 

on December 20, 2019, and the parties agreed to submit further briefing on the matter. (Doc. No. 

23.) Plaintiff submitted her brief on January 10, 2020, and Defendants submitted a responsive 

brief on January 17, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28.) The Court found the matter suitable for decision 

without the need for oral argument and the matter was taken under submission and decided on the 

papers. (Doc. No. 23.)

Case 1:19-cv-01516-DAD-BAM Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 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

2

The Suggestion of Remand and Transfer Order explains that the plaintiffs “conducted 

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

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

devices” prior to the establishment of the MDL and “[t]he pre-MDL general fact discovery was 

made available . . . to all Plaintiffs in the MDL.” (Doc. No. 3 at 9.) The MDL was then “formed 

to centralize all pretrial proceedings and complete all common fact and expert discovery 

concerning Bard IVC filters” and this purpose was fulfilled through the conduct of additional 

general discovery in multiple phases. (Doc. No. 3 at 9-10.) According to the Suggestion of 

Remand and Transfer Order, at the time of transfer to this Court, all general, common fact and 

expert discovery had been completed in the MDL and therefore “the courts receiving these cases 

need not be concerned with facilitating general expert, corporate, and third-party discovery.” 

(Doc. No. 3 at 2-3, 11, 32-32.) However, Judge Campbell noted that “[t]his observation is not 

meant to restrict the power of transferor courts for good cause or in the interest of justice to 

address issues that may be unique and relevant in remanded or transferred cases.” (Id. at 33.)

Plaintiff seeks to obtain discovery regarding “several published articles and medical 

studies addressing the safety and efficacy of IVC filters, the most recent one published in the July 

2019 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine.” (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff points to the 

authors’ conclusion that there is no statistically-significant improvement in the outcomes of 

patients implanted with IVC filers as compared to those without IVC filters. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks 

to conduct depositions of key Bard witnesses involved in the analysis, review and responses to

these articles, and seeks documents related to Bard’s analysis, review and responses of these 

medical studies. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff also seeks the ability to supplement the general 

liability opinions of MDL experts as to the efficacy of IVC filters, including the opinions of Dr. 

Streiff and/or Dr. Garcia. Plaintiff argues the evidence is relevant to design defect, failure to 

warn, and punitive damages. (Doc. No. 27 at 3-4.) 

The discovery Plaintiff seeks is general, common fact and expert discovery that was 

completed in the MDL pursuant to the Suggestion of Remand and Transfer Order. As this Court 

has said to prior similar requests by other Plaintiffs in these related actions, “Plaintiff’s request 

Case 1:19-cv-01516-DAD-BAM Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 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

3

would seem to undermine the very purpose of MDL proceedings, which is to coordinate and 

complete shared pretrial matters such as generic discovery.” (David Todd v. C R. Bard, Inc., et 

al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01226-DAD-BAM, Doc. No. 34.) See Harris v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 04 CIV. 

7615 NRB, 2012 WL 2317338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2012) (citing 17 Moore's Federal 

Practice § 112.07 (3d ed. 2012) (“The transferee court [in an MDL] has the power to manage 

discovery. The key purpose of the multidistrict litigation statute is to provide the transferee judge 

with the discretion to develop an effective and efficient pretrial program.”)). The Multi District 

Litigation Act is intended to “promote the just and efficient conduct of [] actions” through 

“coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C § 1407. 

As Defendants note, “one of the plaintiffs’ primary themes during the bellwether trial was 

the Bard’s IVC filters are not safe or effective . . . allowing the reopening of ‘common discovery’ 

in the remanded cases every time a new IVC filter article is published would effectively extend 

common discovery forever in every remand case.” (Doc. No. 28 at 3.) 

Plaintiff argues that the discovery she seeks is discovery which was not available when 

the MDL discovery closed. The discovery described in Plaintiff’s briefing, however, is common 

discovery that is not unique to the facts of this case, as the proposed discovery deals with filter 

safety and efficacy which were addressed fully during generic discovery. 

In remanded cases in other districts, where Plaintiffs have made similar requests to reopen 

general discovery, courts have denied the requests to reopen, but permitted two exceptions to 

discovery. (Doc. 28 at 2); see e.g., Caldera v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., 2:19-cv-04266-DGC, Doc. 8 

(D. Ariz. Jan. 10, 2019) (denying request with two narrow exceptions), Nava v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 

et al., 4:19-cv-05675-JST, Doc. 46 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2020) (denying request in all six related 

actions, but adopting two narrow Caldera exceptions). These courts did not reopen general fact 

or expert discovery, but permitted two narrow exceptions: (a) Defendants shall timely supplement 

their disclosures of adverse event data; and (b) any new medical literature published since 2017 

may be added to the reliance lists of general experts, and the general experts may expand their 

trial testimony from the MDL to include a discussion of such new literature. Id.

Defendant here argues that permitting these “two narrow exceptions” is proportional and 

Case 1:19-cv-01516-DAD-BAM Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 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

4

efficient. (Doc. 28 at 3.) The Court agrees. These narrow exceptions will be permitted in the 

related Bard cases.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. Plaintiff’s request to reopen general discovery DENIED;

2. General discovery is limited to two narrow exceptions: (a) Defendants shall timely 

supplement their disclosures of adverse event data; and (b) any new medical literature published 

since 2017 may be added to the reliance lists of general experts, and the general experts may 

expand their trial testimony from the MDL to include a discussion of such new literature. With 

these narrow exceptions, discovery in this case will be limited to Plaintiff-specific issues; and

3. The parties in the related remanded cases may submit stipulations in each case to 

permit the discovery in the two narrow exceptions identified in this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01516-DAD-BAM Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 4