EXHIBIT B

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9878-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 4
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 1

 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 3

 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 5 IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS * MDL NO.:

 6 PRODUCTS LIABILITY * MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

 7 LITIGATION *

 8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 9 DO NOT DISCLOSE - SUBJECT TO FURTHER

 10 CONFIDENTIALITY REVIEW

 11

 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF PIOTR SOBIESZCZYK, M.D.

 13 NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP

 14 One Post Office Square

 15 Boston, Massachusetts

 16 September 29, 2017 1:54 p.m.

 17

 18

 19

 20 Maryellen Coughlin, RPR/CRR

 21

 22

 23

 24

 25

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9878-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 4
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 45

 1 A. Mm-hmm.

 2 Q. On the second page. The first --

 3 I'm sorry. At the bottom. I might refer to

 4 numbers at the bottom for ease.

 5 A. Mm-hmm.

 6 Q. In the first paragraph it says,

 7 "The purpose of this expert review is to examine

 8 the clinical aspects of Ms. Booker's

 9 venothromboembolic disease and render an opinion

 10 regarding the impact of the Bard retrievable

 11 filter on her health after filter implantation."

 12 Now what does that mean?

 13 A. I was -- I reviewed her clinical

 14 case and rendered opinion as to what transpired,

 15 what happened to her and offered comment on her

 16 clinical condition before and after filter

 17 implantation.

 18 Q. Well, as an example, you state

 19 several times in your report that there were

 20 opportunities to take the filter out.

 21 Do you recall that?

 22 A. I do.

 23 Q. And I guess my question, following

 24 up on that intro paragraph is, are you planning

 25 on giving opinions at the time of trial that one

6 Q. In the first paragraph it says,

7 "The purpose of this expert review is to examine

8 the clinical aspects of Ms. Booker's

9 venothromboembolic disease and render an opinion

10 regarding the impact of the Bard retrievable

11 filter on her health after filter implantation."

12 Now what does that mean?

13 A. I was -- I reviewed her clinical

14 case and rendered opinion as to what transpired,

15 what happened to her and offered comment on her

16 clinical condition before and after filter

17 implantation.

18 Q. Well, as an example, you state

19 several times in your report that there were

20 opportunities to take the filter out.

21 Do you recall that?

22 A. I do.

23 Q. And I guess my question, following

24 up on that intro paragraph is, are you planning

25 on giving opinions at the time of trial that one

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9878-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 4
Do Not Disclose - Subject to Further Confidentiality Review

Golkow Litigation Services Page 46

 1 of the doctors, whether it's a radiologist or

 2 treating physician, was negligent or breached the

 3 standard of care in not taking the filter out?

 4 A. I have not been asked to comment on

 5 whether standard of care was applied or not, and

 6 I don't intend to.

 7 Q. So you're not going to come to

 8 trial and say, I think this doctor should have

 9 taken the filter out at this point and he's at

 10 fault for these injuries? We're not going to

 11 hear that?

 12 A. I will -- that's not my intention.

 13 Q. You're not and have not been asked

 14 to, nor have you looked at the standard of care

 15 for any of these other doctors in the position

 16 they were in to make determinations to whether

 17 they had breached the standard of care?

 18 A. I have not been asked to do that.

 19 Q. All right. You said you've placed

 20 and retrieved over 200 filters. I also read that

 21 within this.

 22 A. I think that's a fair number. I

 23 don't know the exact number.

 24 Q. Okay. Well, have you looked back

 25 and determined of the filters that you've placed,

1 of the doctors, whether it's a radiologist or

2 treating physician, was negligent or breached the

3 standard of care in not taking the filter out?

4 A. I have not been asked to comment on

5 whether standard of care was applied or not, and

6 I don't intend to.

7 Q. So you're not going to come to

8 trial and say, I think this doctor should have

9 taken the filter out at this point and he's at

10 fault for these injuries? We're not going to

11 hear that?

12 A. I will -- that's not my intention.

13 Q. You're not and have not been asked

14 to, nor have you looked at the standard of care

15 for any of these other doctors in the position

16 they were in to make determinations to whether

17 they had breached the standard of care?

18 A. I have not been asked to do that.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9878-3 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 4