IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 

 

CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN RE: ETHICON INC. 

 PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS 

 PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2327 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

Cases Identified in the Exhibit 

Attached Hereto 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

(Daubert Motion re: Vladimir Iakovlev, M.D.) 

 

Pending before the court is the Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony 

of Dr. Vladirmir1 Iakovlev [ECF No. 2066] filed by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, 

Inc. (collectively “Ethicon”). The Motion is now ripe for consideration because briefing 

is complete. 

I. Background 

This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat 

pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”). In the seven 

MDLs, there are more than 75,000 cases currently pending, approximately 30,000 of 

which are in this MDL. 

In this MDL, the court’s tasks include “resolv[ing] pretrial issues in a timely 

 

1 The proper spelling of Dr. Iakovlev’s first name is Vladimir. 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 19
2 

and expeditious manner” and “resolv[ing] important evidentiary disputes.” Barbara 

J. Rothstein & Catherine R. Borden, Fed. Judicial Ctr., Managing Multidistrict 

Litigation in Products Liability Cases 3 (2011). To handle motions to exclude or to 

limit expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 

509 U.S. 579 (1993), the court developed a specific procedure. In Pretrial Order 

(“PTO”) No. 217, the court instructed the parties to file only one Daubert motion per 

challenged expert, to file each motion in the main MDL—as opposed to the individual 

member cases—and to identify which cases would be affected by the motion. PTO No. 

217, at 4.2

II. Preliminary Matters 

Before plunging into the heart of the Motion, a few preliminary matters need 

to be addressed. 

I am compelled to comment on the parties’ misuse of my previous Daubert

rulings on several of the experts offered in this case. See generally Sanchez v. Bos. 

Sci. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 4851989 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 29, 2014); Tyree 

v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 501 (S.D. W. Va. 2014); Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 

57 F. Supp. 3d 658 (S.D. W. Va. 2014). The parties have, for the most part, structured 

their Daubert arguments as a response to these prior rulings, rather than an 

autonomous challenge to or defense of expert testimony based on its reliability and 

relevance. In other words, the parties have comparatively examined expert testimony 

 

2 Ethicon identified the Wave 1 cases affected by this Motion in its attached Exhibit A [ECF No. 2066-

1], which the court has attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order. At the time of transfer or 

remand, the parties will be required to designate relevant pleadings from MDL 2327, including the 

motion, supporting memorandum, response, reply, and exhibits referenced herein.

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 19
3 

and have largely overlooked Daubert’s core considerations for assessing expert 

testimony. Although I recognize the tendency of my prior evidentiary determinations 

to influence subsequent motions practice, counsels’ expectations that I align with 

these previous rulings when faced with a different record are misplaced, especially 

when an expert has issued new reports and given additional deposition testimony. 

Mindful of my role as gatekeeper for the admission of expert testimony, as well 

as my duty to “respect[ ] the individuality” of each MDL case, see In re 

Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006), I refuse 

to credit Daubert arguments that simply react to the court’s rulings in Sanchez and 

its progeny. Indeed, I feel bound by these earlier cases only to the extent that the 

expert testimony and Daubert objections presented to the court then are identical to 

those presented now. Otherwise, I assess the parties’ Daubert arguments anew. That 

is, in light of the particular expert testimony and objections currently before me, I 

assess “whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is 

scientifically valid” and “whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be 

applied to the facts in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. Any departure from 

Sanchez, Eghnayem, or Tyree does not constitute a “reversal” of these decisions and 

is instead the expected result of the parties’ submission of updated expert reports and 

new objections to the expert testimony contained therein. 

Finally, I have attempted to resolve all possible disputes before transfer or 

remand, including those related to the admissibility of expert testimony pursuant to 

Daubert. Nevertheless, in some instances I face Daubert challenges where my 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 19
4 

interest in accuracy counsels reserving ruling until the reliability of the expert 

testimony may be evaluated at trial. At trial, the expert testimony will be tested by 

precise questions asked and answered. The alternative of live Daubert hearings is 

impossible before transfer or remand because of the numerosity of such motions in 

these seven related MDLs. As these MDLs have grown and the expert testimony has 

multiplied, I have become convinced that the critical gatekeeping function permitting 

or denying expert testimony on decisive issues in these cases is best made with a live 

expert on the witness stand subject to vigorous examination. 

In the course of examining a multitude of these very similar cases involving 

the same fields of expertise, I have faced irreconcilably divergent expert testimony 

offered by witnesses with impeccable credentials, suggesting, to me, an unreasonable 

risk of unreliability. The danger—and to my jaded eye, the near certainty—of the 

admission of “junk science” looms large in this mass litigation. 

The parties regularly present out-of-context statements, after-the-fact 

rationalizations of expert testimony, and incomplete deposition transcripts. This, 

combined with the above-described practice of recycling expert testimony, objections, 

and the court’s prior rulings, creates the perfect storm of obfuscation. Where further 

clarity is necessary, I believe it can only be achieved through live witness testimony—

not briefing—I will therefore reserve ruling until expert testimony can be evaluated 

firsthand. 

III. Legal Standard 

By now, the parties should be intimately familiar with Rule 702 of the Federal 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 19
5 

Rules of Evidence and Daubert, so the court will not linger for long on these 

standards. 

Expert testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified and if his or her expert 

testimony is reliable and relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Daubert, 509 U.S. at 

597. An expert may be qualified to offer expert testimony based on his or her 

“knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Reliability 

may turn on the consideration of several factors: 

(1) whether a theory or technique can be or has been tested; 

(2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and 

publication; (3) whether a technique has a high known or 

potential rate of error and whether there are standards 

controlling its operation; and (4) whether the theory or 

technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant 

scientific community. 

Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing Daubert, 

509 U.S. at 592–94). But these factors are neither necessary to nor determinative of 

reliability in all cases; the inquiry is flexible and puts “principles and methodology” 

above conclusions and outcomes. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; see also Kumho Tire Co. 

v. Carmichael, 525 U.S. 137, 141, 150 (1999). Finally, and simply, relevance turns on 

whether the expert testimony relates to any issues in the case. See, e.g., Daubert, 509 

U.S. at 591–92 (discussing relevance and helpfulness). 

At bottom, the court has broad discretion to determine whether expert 

testimony should be admitted or excluded. Cooper, 259 F.3d at 200.

IV. Discussion 

 

Dr. Vladimir Iakovlev is a clinical pathologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 5 of 19
6 

Toronto, Canada. Each year, he conducts approximately 5,000 pathological 

examinations in his practice. 

a. Properties 

i. Degradation 

Ethicon seeks exclusion of Dr. Iakovlev’s degradation opinions, which it claims 

are unreliable. As an initial matter, Ethicon seeks to exclude all of Dr. Iakovlev’s 

degradation-related testimony when in fact, Ethicon disputes the reliability of a 

specific opinion about degradation bark. Ethicon argues that the “central theory 

underlying all of Dr. Iakovlev’s degradation opinions is that the Prolene in Ethicon 

mesh products degrades in vivo creating cracks in the degraded Prolene that trap 

histological stains, which Dr. Iakovlev can detect via light microscopy.” Mem. 4 [ECF 

No. 2070]. A review of Dr. Iakovlev’s report shows this is a mischaracterization of his 

proposed testimony. Dr. Iakovlev’s testimony on degradation generally is extensively 

supported with specific references to the scientific literature and several internal 

Ethicon documents. His manner of corroborating the scientific literature by 

performing his own tests to detect degradation is only one facet of his testimony. I 

will not order a blanket exclusion of Dr. Iakovlev’s degradation testimony based on 

Ethicon’s misleading representations. 

 I will, however, address Ethicon’s specific challenge. Ethicon disputes the 

reliability of Dr. Iakovlev’s opinion that he can detect degradation bark because it 

traps histological dyes. Ethicon claims this opinion rests on an implicit untested 

hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the scientific method. Ethicon is basically 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 6 of 19
7 

demanding that Dr. Iakovlev artificially try to replicate degradation with oxidation 

outside of the body in his lab before he can testify about degradation that allegedly 

occurred inside the body. The plaintiffs dispute the existence of any untested 

hypothesis and argue that additional laboratory testing is not necessary to support 

what Dr. Iakovlev sees from “actual explanted mesh from human beings.” Resp. 8–9 

[ECF No. 2185]. 

 While the parties have discussed at length the merits of conducting in vivo

testing to artificially replicate degradation in a laboratory setting, the court has 

insufficient evidence to evaluate the methodology Dr. Iakovlev actually employed to 

examine mesh samples that allegedly degraded in vivo. Accordingly, I RESERVE

ruling until Dr. Iakovlev’s methodology of examining mesh explant samples can be 

evaluated firsthand at trial. 

ii. Linking Degradation to Complications 

Ethicon objects to Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions that “degradation needs to be 

considered as a factor of additional stiffening and late deformations of the mesh” and 

that “if chemical and physical properties of a material change while it is in the body 

it should not be used for permanent applications and for anatomical sites from which 

the devices cannot be safety removed.” Mem. 9–10 [ECF No. 2070] (citing Iakovlev 

Report 8–9 [ECF No. 2066-4]). Ethicon argues that this is unreliable because Dr. 

Iakovlev’s writings “tell a far different story.” Mem. 10. I disagree. A review of the 

citations provided—most of which simply acknowledge the incomplete state of 

scientific knowledge on this subject and the need for additional study—does not 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 7 of 19
8 

demonstrate any irreconcilable differences. Even if it did, such contradictions would 

be better suited for cross-examination than as a basis for exclusion. Accordingly, 

Ethicon’s Motion is DENIED on this issue. 

iii. Mesh Folding and Deformation 

Ethicon also seeks to exclude Dr. Iakovlev’s testimony that mesh can fold or 

curl in vivo and that such deformations can cause compartments, which in turn cause 

pain. Ethicon disputes that Dr. Iakovlev can merely look at a pathology slide and 

infer that mesh curled or deformed in the body. In response, the plaintiffs do not 

address the reliability of Dr. Iakovlev’s method for determining whether mesh was 

folded in vivo. Accordingly, Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions on folding and curling are 

EXCLUDED to the extent they rely solely on his personal analysis of pathology slides, 

and Ethicon’s Motion is GRANTED on this point. 

b. Complications 

Ethicon argues that Dr. Iakovlev failed to use a control in his examination of 

explanted mesh, thus he is unable to properly correlate specific complications with 

the samples examined. Ethicon relies on other expert opinions criticizing Dr. 

Iakovlev’s approach to demonstrate that Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions are unreliable. The 

essence of the argument is that Dr. Iakovlev did not compare examined tissue slides 

of patients complaining of pain to slides of tissue from patients who did not complain 

of pain yet nonetheless had their mesh devices removed. The plaintiffs argue that Dr. 

Iakovlev compared his samples to “normal tissue” present within the same slides. 

Ethicon argues that “Dr. Iakovlev’s comparison of his pathological findings to normal 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 8 of 19
9 

tissue within the same slide does not constitute a control, since he cannot rule out the 

fact that patients not suffering from pain may have the same pathological 

presentation based on this comparison.” Reply 11 [ECF No. 2251]. I agree. Without a 

proper control, Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions correlating specific complications with 

samples of explanted mesh products do not provide a sufficiently reliable 

methodology. See Sanchez v. Bos. Sci. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 4851989, at 

*28 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 29, 2014) (“Vigorous adherence to protocols and controls are 

the hallmarks of ‘good science.’” (citing to Black v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 

2d 592, 603 (S.D. W. Va. 1998))). To the extent that Dr. Iakovlev offers complications 

opinions based on his examination of explanted mesh samples without the use of a 

control sample, his complications opinions are EXCLUDED. 

 Ethicon next argues that Dr. Iakovlev ignored relevant scientific literature, 

specifically, Dr. Hill’s study entitled Histopathology of Excised Midurethral Sling 

Mesh. Dr. Iakovlev’s alleged failure to review a particular study in forming his 

opinion is better suited for cross-examination, particularly when Dr. Iakovlev has 

supported his opinions with numerous other studies. Ethicon’s Motion is DENIED on 

this point. 

 Ethicon next argues that a certain paper that Dr. Iakovlev co-authored reveals 

that his methodology is not scientifically legitimate. Ethicon points to the following 

quote from the paper as evidence that Dr. Iakovlev is unable to form opinions 

regarding complications: “At present, general human tissue interactions with the 

mesh are known, but we have an incomplete understanding of interactions specific to 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 9 of 19
10 

a mesh material and design as well as the pathophysiology of any complications.” 

Mot. re: Dr. Iakovlev, Ex. O at 15 [ECF No. 2066-17]. The standards elucidated in 

Daubert certainly do not require an expert to have a “complete understanding” of an 

issue in a particular field, and the reality is that a complete understanding of 

anything in science is virtually unattainable. Dr. Iakovlev has supported his opinions 

with his own experience and citation to scientific literature. To the extent that 

Ethicon believes that Dr. Iakovlev has made inconsistent statements regarding his 

opinions, Ethicon is free to cross-examine him on those points. Ethicon’s Motion on 

this point is DENIED. 

 Ethicon next challenges Dr. Iakovlev’s qualifications to offer opinions 

regarding certain alleged complications, such as thromboses, occlusions of capillaries, 

and arterioles. Additionally, Ethicon challenges Dr. Iakovlev’s opinion that “the 

presence of smooth muscle in mesh pores reveals that the mesh has migrated because 

smooth muscle has a restricted ability to regenerate.” Mem. Supp. Mot. re: Dr. 

Iakovlev 16 [ECF No. 2070]. The basis of Ethicon’s arguments is centered on Ethicon’s 

own experts’ criticisms of Dr. Iakovlev’s conclusions. The simple fact that Ethicon’s 

experts disagree with Dr. Iakovlev does not mean Dr. Iakovlev is rendered 

unqualified under Daubert. Dr. Iakovlev is a highly experienced clinical pathologist, 

and he is qualified to render his complications opinions based on his knowledge, skill, 

education, and experience. Ethicon’s Motion on this point is DENIED. 

 Next, Ethicon argues that Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions regarding the presence and 

clinical significance of “nerve twigs” or “nerve branches” are inconsistent with the 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 10 of 19
11 

scientific method and medical facts. Again, the basis for Ethicon’s challenge is that 

Ethicon’s own experts disagree with the ultimate opinions Dr. Iakovlev offers. 

Differing opinions reached by opposing experts is not an appropriate challenge under 

Daubert. Dr. Iakovlev has sufficiently explained his opinions regarding nerve branch 

entrapment and distortion, and such opinions are within his specialty as a clinical 

pathologist. Ethicon’s Motion on this point is DENIED. 

 Ethicon next challenges as unreliable Dr. Iakovlev’s opinion that the presence 

of an erosion necessarily implies that a patient has a wound infection. Ethicon points 

to deposition testimony where Dr. Iakovlev testified that “erosion is always associated 

with localized infection.” Iakovlev Dep. 14:2–6, March 13, 2016 [ECF No. 2066-29]. 

Dr. Iakovlev does not provide any support for his opinion that erosion is always

associated with localized infection other than stating his own experience. Even his 

report, which states that “[m]ucosal erosion of the transvaginal Ethicon mesh 

becomes a chronic open wound and an entry for infectious organisms,” provides no 

citation to scientific literature. Report 18 [ECF No. 2066-4]. Dr. Iakovlev’s opinion, 

which would universally apply to all Ethicon mesh, is simply not supported with cited 

scientific literature. Dr. Iakovlev’s opinions on this point are unreliable, and they are 

EXCLUDED. 

c. Mesh Explants 

Ethicon argues that Dr. Iakovlev should not be permitted to testify on the basis 

of mesh explants that are not the subject of this litigation because he “previously 

testified that he could not determine the origins of many of the slides used in his 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 11 of 19
12 

reports.” Mem. 22. Such indeterminacy raises concerns about the integrity of Dr. 

Iakovlev’s data pool, as the selection and origin of samples may necessarily affect the 

conclusions that may reliably be drawn from them. To the extent that Dr. Iakovlev 

cannot determine the origin of the slides on which his opinions are based, such 

opinions are EXCLUDED as unreliable. 

V. Recurring Issues 

 

Many of the Daubert motions filed in this MDL raise the same or similar 

objections. 

One particular issue has been a staple in this litigation, so I find it best to 

discuss it in connection with every expert. A number of the Daubert motions seek to 

exclude FDA testimony and other regulatory or industry standards testimony. To the 

extent this Motion raises these issues it is GRANTED in part and RESERVED in 

part as described below. 

I have repeatedly excluded evidence regarding the FDA’s section 510(k) 

clearance process in these MDLs, and will continue to do so in these cases, a position 

that has been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 81 F.3d 913, 

921–23 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding the determination that the probative value of 

evidence related to section 510(k) was substantially outweighed by its possible 

prejudicial impact under Rule 403). Because the section 510(k) clearance process does 

not speak directly to safety and efficacy, it is of negligible probative value. See In re 

C. R. Bard, 81 F.3d at 920 (“[T]he clear weight of persuasive and controlling authority 

favors a finding that the 510(k) procedure is of little or no evidentiary value.”). 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 12 of 19
13 

Delving into complex and lengthy testimony about regulatory compliance could 

inflate the perceived importance of compliance and lead jurors “to erroneously 

conclude that regulatory compliance proved safety.” Id. at 922. Accordingly, expert 

testimony related to the section 510(k) process, including subsequent enforcement 

actions and discussion of the information Ethicon did or did not submit in its section 

510(k) application, is EXCLUDED. For the same reasons, opinions about Ethicon’s 

compliance with or violation of the FDA’s labeling and adverse event reporting 

regulations are EXCLUDED. In addition to representing inappropriate legal 

conclusions, such testimony is not helpful to the jury in determining the facts at issue 

in these cases and runs the risk of misleading the jury and confusing the issues. 

Insofar as this Motion challenges the FDA-related testimony discussed here, the 

Motion is GRANTED. 

 A number of experts also seek to opine on Ethicon’s compliance with design 

control and risk management standards. Some of this testimony involves the FDA’s 

quality systems regulations, and some—likely in an attempt to sidestep my 

anticipated prohibition on FDA testimony—involve foreign regulations and 

international standards. I find all of this proposed testimony of dubious relevance. 

Although these standards relate to how a manufacturer should structure and 

document risk assessment, the standards do not appear to mandate any particular 

design feature or prescribe the actual balance that must be struck in weighing a 

product’s risk and utility. Nor is it clear that the European and other international 

standards discussed had any bearing on the U.S. medical device industry when the 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 13 of 19
14 

device in question was being designed. 

Nevertheless, because the nuances of products liability law vary by state, I will 

refrain from issuing a blanket exclusion on design process and control standards 

testimony, whether rooted in the FDA or otherwise. Each standard must be assessed 

for its applicability to the safety questions at issue in this litigation, consistent with 

state law. I am without sufficient information to make these findings at this time. 

Accordingly, I RESERVE ruling on such matters until a hearing, where the trial 

judge will have additional context to carefully evaluate the relevance and potential 

prejudicial impact of specific testimony. 

Similarly, I doubt the relevance of testimony on the adequacy of Ethicon’s 

clinical testing and research, physician outreach, or particular product development 

procedures and assessments otherwise not encompassed by the above discussion. 

Again, such matters seem to say very little about the state of the product itself (i.e., 

whether or not it was defective) when it went on the market. But because the scope 

of relevant testimony may vary according to differences in state products liability law, 

I RESERVE ruling on such matters until they may be evaluated in proper context at 

a hearing before the trial court before or at trial. 

Additional—and more broad—matters also warrant mention. While some of 

these concerns may not apply to this particular expert, these concerns are raised so 

frequently that they are worth discussing here. 

First, many of the motions seek to exclude state-of-mind and legal-conclusion 

expert testimony. Throughout these MDLs, the court has prohibited the parties from 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 14 of 19
15 

using experts to usurp the jury’s fact-finding function by allowing testimony of this 

type, and I do the same here. E.g., In re C. R. Bard, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 2d 589, 611 

(S.D. W. Va. 2013); see also, e.g., United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550, 562 (4th Cir. 

2006) (“[O]pinion testimony that states a legal standard or draws a legal conclusion 

by applying law to the facts is generally inadmissible.”); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. 

Litig., 309 F. Supp. 2d 531, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Inferences about the intent and 

motive of parties or others lie outside the bounds of expert testimony.”). Additionally, 

an expert may not offer expert testimony using “legal terms of art,” such as 

“defective,” “unreasonably dangerous,” or “proximate cause.” See Perez v. Townsend 

Eng’g Co., 562 F. Supp. 2d 647, 652 (M.D. Pa. 2008). 

Second, and on a related note, many of the motions seek to prohibit an expert 

from parroting facts found in corporate documents and the like. I caution the parties 

against introducing corporate evidence through expert witnesses. Although an expert 

may testify about his review of internal corporate documents solely for the purpose 

of explaining the basis for his or her expert opinions—assuming the expert opinions 

are otherwise admissible—he or she may not offer testimony that is solely a conduit 

for corporate information. 

Third, many of the motions also ask the court to require an expert to offer 

testimony consistent with that expert’s deposition or report or the like. The court will 

not force an expert to testify one way or another. To the extent an expert offers 

inconsistent testimony, the matter is more appropriately handled via crossexamination or impeachment as appropriate and as provided by the Federal Rules of 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 15 of 19
16 

Evidence. 

Fourth, in these Daubert motions, the parties have addressed tertiary 

evidentiary matters like whether certain statements should be excluded as hearsay. 

The court will not exclude an expert simply because a statement he or she discussed 

may constitute hearsay. Cf. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. Hearsay objections are more 

appropriately raised at trial. 

Finally, in some of the Daubert motions, without identifying the specific expert 

testimony to be exclude, the parties ask the court to prevent experts from offering 

other expert testimony that the moving party claims the expert is not qualified to 

offer. I will not make speculative or advisory rulings. I decline to exclude testimony 

where the party seeking exclusion does not provide specific content or context. 

VI. Conclusion 

The court DENIES in part, GRANTS in part, and RESERVES in part the 

Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Vladimir Iakovlev [ECF No. 

2066]. 

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and 

Order in 2:12-md-2327 and in the Ethicon Wave 1 cases identified in the Exhibit 

attached hereto. 

ENTER: September 1, 2016 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 16 of 19
EXHIBIT A 

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 17 of 19
Case Name Case Number

Adams, Joan 2:12cv01203

Amsden, Donna 2:12cv00960

Babcock, Marty 2:12cv01052

Baugher, Dorothy 2:12cv01053 

Beach, Harriet 2:12cv00476

Bennett, Dina Sanders 2:12cv00497

Blake, Bonnie & Larry Miketey 2:12cv00995

Boggs, Sharon & Michael 2:12cv00368

Bollinger, Karen 2:12cv01215

Bridges, Robin 2:12cv00651

Clayton, Melissa & Charles 2:12cv00489

Cole, Carey Beth & David 2:12cv00483

Conti, Patricia 2:12cv00516

Daino, Constance & Anthony 2:12cv01145

Destefano-Raston, Dina & Terry 2:12cv01299

Dimock, Carol Jean 2:12cv00401

Drake, Karyn E. & Douglas E. 2:12cv00747

Durham, Lois & Gerald 2:12cv00760

Fox, Sherry & Roy, Jr. 2:12cv00878

Free, Pamela 2:12cv00423

Freeman, Shirley & William 2:12cv00490

Freitas, Monica & Kenneth 2:12cv01146

Frye, Jackie 2:12cv01004

Funderburke, Betty 2:12cv00957

Georgilakis, Teresa & Angelo 2:12cv00829

Hagans, Wendy 2:12cv00783

Hankins, Donna & Roger 2:12cv01011

Hendrix, Mary & Thomas 2:12cv00595

Holmes, Jeanie 2:12cv01206

Hooper, Nancy & Daniel 2:12cv00493

Hoy, Lois & Robert 2:12cv00876

Jones, Holly & Jason 2:12cv00443

Joplin, Deborah Lynn 2:12cv00787

Justus, Joyce 2:12cv00956

Kaiser, Barbara 2:12cv00887

Kriz, Paula & James 2:12cv00938

Lankston, Cheryl 2:12cv00755

Loustaunau, Donna 2:12cv00666

Lozano, Deborah & Felipe 2:12cv00347

Massey, Donna & Charles 2:12cv00347

McBrayer, Dee & Timothy 2:12cv00779

Morrison, Angela & Bradley 2:12cv00800

Nix, Cynthia 2:12cv01278

Phelps, Patti Ann & James 2:12cv01171

Reyes, Jennifer & Jerry 2:12cv00939

Ruebel, Ana 2:12cv00663

&9)*#*5"*",07-&7



%FCSB-ZOO

   DW

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 18 of 19
Ruiz, Patricia 2:12cv01021

Schnering, Debra A. & Donald, Sr. 2:12cv01071

Sikes, Jennifer 2:12cv00501

Smith, Cindy 2:12cv01149

Stone, Maria C. & Mark A. 2:12cv00652

Stubblefield, Margaret 2:12cv00842

Swint, Isabel 2:12cv00786

Taylor, Charlene Logan 2:12cv00376

Teasley, Krystal 2:12cv00500

Thaman, Susan 2:12cv00279

Thomas, Kimberly 2:12cv00499

Vignos-Ware, Barbara J. & Gary L. 2:12cv00761

Warmack, Roberta & Thomas 2:12cv01150

Waynick, Laura & David 2:12cv01151

Wheeler, Rebecca & David 2:12cv01088

White, Virginia & Edward 2:12cv00958

Wilson, Blynn 2:12cv01286

Wolfe, Kathleen 2:12cv00337

Wright, Thelma 2:12cv01090

Wroble, Julie & Jerry 2:12cv01090





 DW

Case 5:11-cv-06584-LHK Document 125 Filed 09/01/16 Page 19 of 19