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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

No. MDL 15-02641-PHX DGC 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

NO. 30 

The Court held a fourteenth case management conference on January 19, 2018. 

The conference occurred after oral argument on various expert motions and addressed 

ongoing matters identified in the parties’ joint report. Doc. 9645. 

A. Motion Hearings.

The Court heard oral argument on motions relating to experts Muehrcke, Hurst, 

Eisenberg, and Betensky. The parties and the Court agreed that oral argument is not 

needed on motions related to experts McMeeking, Morris, Grassi, Garcia/Streiff, criminal 

law standards, and Ritchie. The Court will rule on these motions during the month of 

February. The Court will also rule on the motion in limine recently filed by Plaintiffs on 

the use of FDA-related evidence at trial. 

B. Other Matters.

Plaintiffs may use up to five pages for a motion in limine on the issue of nonparties at fault. Defendants may file a five-page response. 

Defendants may file a motion in limine of up to ten pages on when evidence 

regarding the Recovery filter may be introduced. Plaintiffs may file a ten-page response, 

and Defendants may file a five-page reply, if needed. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9775 Filed 01/23/18 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

The parties will confer about bifurcating the Booker trial under Georgia law. If 

such bifurcation occurs, evidence regarding Defendants’ net worth, as possibly relevant 

to the issue of punitive damages, will be postponed until after the jury rules on whether 

punitive damages should be awarded. If the punitive damages phase is needed, the 

parties agreed that it will be short and will occur immediately after the jury’s general 

verdict. The Court reminded the parties that any time devoted to this punitive damages 

portion of the trial must be counted against the hours allotted to each side in Case 

Management No. 29. 

Plaintiffs requested permission to conduct limited punitive damages discovery. 

The Court concludes that the parties should confer to see if they can agree on an 

exchange of information, in admissible form, that will eliminate the need for additional 

discovery. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, Plaintiffs may take one 

deposition under Rule 30(b)(6) for up to two hours. The deposition will be completed 

before the final pretrial conference on March 2, 2018. 

The final pretrial conference will begin at 10:00 a.m. on March 2, 2018. The 

Court will reserve the balance of the day to address any and all pretrial matters. 

The parties asked that the Court rule on the Jones summary judgment motion as 

soon as possible, but agreed that the expert motions and the motions in limine to be filed 

on January 26, 2018, take priority. The Court will use its best effort to rule on the Jones 

motion before the end of February. 

The parties and the Court did not set another status conference. If issues arise that 

require the Court’s attention, the parties should place a joint telephone call to the Court so 

that such a conference can be scheduled. The next scheduled hearing in this case will be 

the final pretrial conference. 

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2018. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9775 Filed 01/23/18 Page 2 of 2