Exhibit 1

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 1 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 1

 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 3

 4

 5 -------------------------------

 )

 6 IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS )

 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ) NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

 7 LITIGATION, )

 )

 8 -------------------------------

 9 DO NOT DISCLOSE

 SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONFIDENTIALITY REVIEW

 10

 11 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

 - of -

 12 CHRISTOPHER S. MORRIS, M.D.

 13

 14

 15 taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs on Tuesday,

 July 25, 2017, at the Courtyard by Marriott,

 16 25 Cherry Street, Burlington, Vermont,

 commencing at 9:08 AM.

 17

 18

 19

 20 VIDEO TECHNICIAN: DEVYN MULHOLLAND

 21 COURT REPORTER: JOHANNA MASSÉ, RMR, CRR

 22

 23

 24

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 2 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 139

 1 A. Yes.

 2 Q. What level of certainty did you apply to your

 3 opinions?

 4 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.

 5 You can respond.

 6 A. I don't know really how to answer that

 7 question. I think that's more of a legal term, as far

 8 as I can tell, but I approached this litigation the

 9 same way I practice interventional radiology on a daily

 10 basis. I always seek the truth, number one. I use

 11 many factors to help render my opinions. That includes

 12 first and foremost my personal experience, which I

 13 consider large. I also review the medical literature,

 14 the pertinent medical literature, of which there's not

 15 a lot of Level I or Level II evidence related to IVC

 16 filters, unfortunately, and I'm -- I'm part of that

 17 problem. I've contributed to the Level III and below

 18 evidence as well.

 19 But I still use the literature to help me

 20 make -- make these decisions. I attend national

 21 meetings, talk with colleagues, participate in journal

 22 clubs, and honestly rely a lot on the FDA to -- to help

 23 make these decisions as well. So there are lots of

 24 different factors that go into it.

2 Q. What level of certainty did you apply to your

3 opinions?

4 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.

5 You can respond.

6 A. I don't know really how to answer that

7 question. I think that's more of a legal term, as far

8 as I can tell, but I approached this litigation the

9 same way I practice interventional radiology on a daily

10 basis. I always seek the truth, number one. I use

11 many factors to help render my opinions. That includes

12 first and foremost my personal experience, which I

13 consider large. I also review the medical literature,

14 the pertinent medical literature, of which there's not

15 a lot of Level I or Level II evidence related to IVC

16 filters, unfortunately, and I'm -- I'm part of that

17 problem. I've contributed to the Level III and below

18 evidence as well.

19 But I still use the literature to help me

20 make -- make these decisions. I attend national

21 meetings, talk with colleagues, participate in journal

22 clubs, and honestly rely a lot on the FDA to -- to help

23 make these decisions as well. So there are lots of

24 different factors that go into it.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 3 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 140

 1 Q. Right. So --

 2 A. My -- I approach the litigation using the

 3 same -- same methodology, essentially. So I would say

 4 a high level of certainty.

 5 Q. Right. So I understand your answer was mostly

 6 about your methodology, your approach, what things

 7 you -- how you approach reaching a decision, and I'm --

 8 and I think the last part of your answer where you said

 9 "so I would say a high level of certainty," that's

 10 really what I was getting after with my question is

 11 what level of certainty, and you said a high level of

 12 certainty.

 13 So my question follow-up on that is, Did

 14 you --

 15 A. I was going to say the reason I said all those

 16 is because if I just relied on a hunch or what my

 17 pulmonology colleague told -- told me that had never

 18 placed a filter in his life, that methodology would

 19 lead me to have less of a high level of certainty.

 20 Q. Of course.

 21 A. I might have a low -- so that's why I had to

 22 give you the background on how I know that I reached a

 23 high level of certainty in my opinions.

 24 Q. Yes. And so if you were to put a numerical

2 A. My -- I approach the litigation using the

3 same -- same methodology, essentially. So I would say

4 a high level of certainty.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 4 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 141

 1 quantification to "high level of certainty," would it

 2 be -- what would it be, approximately?

 3 MR. ROGERS: Object -- object to the form.

 4 A. That is a very difficult question to answer,

 5 quant- --

 6 Q. You're getting paid $500 an hour to answer

 7 hard questions.

 8 A. Well, yeah.

 9 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. That's not

 10 the definition --

 11 MR. ROTMAN: I'll strike that.

 12 MR. ROGERS: -- of what makes a question

 13 acceptable.

 14 MR. ROTMAN: I'll strike that. I'll strike

 15 that.

 16 Q. Maybe you can't answer it.

 17 A. I mean, you know, the -- so --

 18 Q. What level of --

 19 A. -- I have to -- I have to answer that

 20 difficult question with a difficult answer. And, you

 21 know, we were talking on a break a little while ago

 22 about memory issues. My -- my benchmark for 100

 23 percent certain medical science, so to speak my

 24 touchstone, is my brother, who I'm very close to, who's

22 about memory issues. My -- my benchmark for 100

23 percent certain medical science, so to speak my

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 5 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 142

 1 a top ten neuroscience researcher specializing in

 2 Alzheimer's and memory disorders, so I gauge that as

 3 being 100 percent certain. He has $50 million in

 4 grants. He's the quintessential medical scientist that

 5 relies on Level I and Level II evidence. So when I

 6 compare his body of work, which I know -- which I've

 7 been following my entire life -- again, he's -- you

 8 know, he's very close to me and -- and I really respect

 9 his degree of scientific validity. When I compare that

 10 to the literature that's available regarding IVC

 11 filters, there's basically no -- no comparison, so how

 12 can I make 100 percent certain opinions based on

 13 literature which is less than Level I or Level II

 14 evidence?

 15 Q. Understood. And -- and so nevertheless, you

 16 have reached opinions --

 17 A. Yes, I --

 18 Q. -- and you had -- and in order to do that, you

 19 had to reach a certain point based on your review of

 20 the evidence where you had a high level of certainty;

 21 that's what you testified. And I'm trying to

 22 understand how to understand what you mean by "high

 23 level of certainty." So, for example, I asked you for

 24 a numerical and I don't -- and I didn't get an answer

9 his degree of scientific validity. When I compare that

10 to the literature that's available regarding IVC

11 filters, there's basically no -- no comparison, so how

12 can I make 100 percent certain opinions based on

13 literature which is less than Level I or Level II

14 evidence?

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 6 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 143

 1 to that.

 2 A. And I can't answer that.

 3 Q. And you can't answer that.

 4 A. Right.

 5 Q. So, you know, would -- would "high level" mean

 6 more than 80 percent certain?

 7 MR. ROGERS: Object --

 8 Q. Let me -- let me suggest that as a starting

 9 point.

 10 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. Asked and

 11 answered.

 12 You can respond.

 13 A. And your -- the question is related to all my

 14 opinions?

 15 Q. Yeah. Your opinions --

 16 A. Yeah.

 17 Q. -- in this case.

 18 A. I would say yes, I'm -- I'm more than a B -- B

 19 student, so it would be more than 80 percent, yes. I

 20 generally score more than 90 percent.

 21 Q. So that's what you generally look for is more

 22 than 90 percent certainty for your opinions in this

 23 case?

 24 A. Generally speaking, yes.

20 generally score more than 90 percent.

21 Q. So that's what you generally look for is more

22 than 90 percent certainty for your opinions in this

23 case?

24 A. Generally speaking, yes.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 7 of 12
Exhibit 2

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 8 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services - 1.877.370.DEPS

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

************************************

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION

************************************

 DO NOT DISCLOSE

 SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONFIDENTIALITY REVIEW

 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CLEMENT J. GRASSI, MD

 Thursday, June 15, 2017

 9:24 a.m.

 Held At:

 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

 One Post Office Square

 Boston, Massachusetts

REPORTED BY:

Maureen O'Connor Pollard, RMR, CLR, CSR

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 9 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services - 1.877.370.DEPS

Page 91

1 mentioned as compared to there being only one

2 that must explain all fractures?

3 A. My own personal opinion is that I have

4 not yet encountered an explanation which has

5 weight of evidence behind it. Whether it is

6 connected with one factor or multifactorial, I

7 really can't say. What I can say is it's my

8 opinion that there has not been a mechanism

9 which has yet been proven by the persons who

10 have advanced it.

11 Q. When you say "proven," what level of

12 certainty does it take in your -- according to

13 your own standards that you're applying here to

14 say something is proven?

15 MR. BROWN: Object to the form.

16 A. That's a difficult question, only

17 because proof varies scientifically. For

18 example, we could go back to some of Koch's

19 postulates -- that's spelled K-O-C-H -- in

20 which, medically speaking, if you have an

21 offending agent, the methodology is to identify

22 the offending agent, show that it causes a

23 problem in the human, then take the offending

24 agent and reintroduce it into the human and

8 opinion that there has not been a mechanism

9 which has yet been proven by the persons who

10 have advanced it.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 10 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services - 1.877.370.DEPS

Page 94

1 A. I would say that the one that would

2 fit for me --

3 MR. BROWN: Just object to the form.

4 You can answer.

5 A. The one that would fit for me would --

6 in consideration of the fact that this involves

7 many patients, many devices which have already

8 been implanted, and the protection against a

9 very fearful disease, that is pulmonary embolus,

10 that I would look for evidence where I felt

11 certain beyond any reasonable doubt.

12 BY MR. ROTMAN:

13 Q. And is that the kind of evidence that

14 you're applying for your opinions in this case?

15 A. Overall, yes.

16 Q. And on the issue of explanations for

17 why the Bard retrievable filters fracture, are

18 you aware of what steps Bard has taken to answer

19 that question?

20 A. Yes, I know that Bard has improved,

21 honed, and refined its various newer devices as

22 time has progressed.

23 Q. But I'm asking a different question.

24 I'm asking, what has Bard done to figure out why

10 that I would look for evidence where I felt

11 certain beyond any reasonable doubt.

12 BY MR. ROTMAN:

13 Q. And is that the kind of evidence that

14 you're applying for your opinions in this case?

15 A. Overall, yes.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 11 of 12
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services - 1.877.370.DEPS

Page 128

1 and observe that there was a fracture. They

2 observed a trend, but there's no way of knowing

3 when the fracture occurred, and if in that

4 particular patient the fracture occurred on day

5 two after it was implanted, or if it occurred on

6 the day before the filter was removed when they

7 observed it.

8 So my own opinion is that further work

9 has to be done on this particular subject before

10 I'm convinced of that direct relationship.

11 Q. And again, you're using the word

12 "convinced." Yes?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And this opinion of yours that more

15 work needs to be done, you have not done that

16 work yourself, have you?

17 A. No, I have not done it personally.

18 Q. You have not done any studies to

19 evaluate whether the risk of complications

20 increases with the increased duration of a

21 filter being implanted, a Bard retrievable

22 filter being implanted in a patient?

23 A. No, I haven't performed those specific

24 research studies.

8 So my own opinion is that further work

9 has to be done on this particular subject before

10 I'm convinced of that direct relationship.

11 Q. And again, you're using the word

12 "convinced." Yes?

13 A. Yes.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8209-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 12 of 12