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 

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. 

2575 East Camelback Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 

(602) 530-8000 

Ramon Rossi Lopez – rlopez@lopezmchugh.com

(California Bar Number 86361; admitted pro hac vice) 

Lopez McHugh LLP 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, California 92660 

949-812-5771 

Mark S. O’Connor (011029) – mark.oconnor@gknet.com

Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A. 

2575 East Camelback Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 

602-530-8000 

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

In Re Bard IVC Filters Products 

Liability Litigation 

No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC

SHERR-UNA BOOKER, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C.R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey 

corporation and BARD PERIPHERAL 

VASCULAR, an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE #12 

AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DR. 

KANG’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS 

(The Honorable David G. Campbell) 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 

EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF DR. KANG’S SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS 

Plaintiff moves in limine for an Order precluding evidence and argument related to: 

(1) Dr. Brandon Kang’s Twitter and Facebook accounts and use of the terms “lasso,” 

cowboy,” “GTFO” (Get The Filter Out), “#filterout,” “#IRad,” and the cowboy emoji; and 

(2) comments, posts, photos, or videos that Dr. Kang posted on these accounts. None of 

the posts, photos, videos, comments, emojis or hashtag terms are relevant to Plaintiff or 

Dr. Kang’s treatment of Plaintiff years earlier, and would be highly and unfairly 

prejudicial to Plaintiff’s case. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9877 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 4
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 

Dr. Kang treated Plaintiff in July 2014, and he did not even join Twitter until 

March 2017. See Exhibit A, Deposition of Dr. Brandon Kang, July 15, 2017, 76:14-21. It 

is clear from defense counsel’s questioning at Dr. Kang’s deposition that Bard seeks to 

introduce this evidence in an attempt to paint Dr. Kang as a reckless cowboy who lassos 

filters and gets them out in a cavalier manner. Id. at 73-76; 111-112; 174-175. This 

evidence is neither timely nor probative of his treatment of Plaintiff. 

Dr. Kang testified that he joined Twitter and began using these hashtag terms and 

the cowboy emoji after he attended a Society of Interventional Radiology meeting in 

Washington D.C. in March of 2017. Id. at 76. Dr. Kang became aware, during the 

meeting that many interventional radiologists were “tweeting” about cases and sharing 

case experiences, and he decided it was a good way to become involved with other 

interventional radiologists. Id. Dr. Kang did not personally come up with any of these 

hashtag terms or the idea of using the cowboy emoji. Id. at 75-76. Dr. Kang used the 

lighthearted cowboy emoji and the hashtag terms as a way to be included in the online 

sharing and attention to work in the interventional radiology arena. Id. at 159-160. He 

also referred to himself as a magician on Twitter when he used a microwave ablation to 

make kidney tumors “disappear.” Id. at 160. He called this procedure a “magic trick.” 

Id. Dr. Kang takes his career as an interventional radiologist seriously, and he testified 

that he is not a cowboy or a magician, he is an interventional radiologist. Id. There is no 

evidence that Dr. Kang posted any “tweets” about Plaintiff’s case or condition, and he did 

not join Twitter until years after he treated her. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9877 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

Evidence of Dr. Kang’s post-treatment Twitter and Facebook posts is irrelevant to 

his care and treatment of Plaintiff, and admitting such evidence would be highly 

prejudicial and misleading to the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. The implication—

based on events occurring and information gained three years after Dr. Kang last treated 

Plaintiff—would be that Dr. Kang is reckless and acted irresponsibly in attempting to 

retrieve the filter piece from Plaintiff’s right ventricle. In reality, the evidence in this case 

is quite the opposite. Dr. Kang conferred with a cardiothoracic surgeon before deciding to 

attempt the removal of the filter piece from Plaintiff’s right ventricle. Id. at 22-23. The 

surgeon and Dr. Kang, in consultation with Plaintiff, were in agreement that the 

percutaneous removal attempt was in the best interest of the patient. Id. Dr. Kang arranged 

for a cardiothoracic surgeon to be on standby while he was attempting the removal in case 

a cardio problem arose. Id. at 43. Dr. Kang stopped the attempted removal when it became 

clear that it was problematic to continue. Id. at 41-42. No physician or expert has 

expressed any opinion in this matter that Dr. Kang’s treatment of Plaintiff was outside the 

standard of care. In fact, Bard’s own expert, Dr. Sobieszczyk, testified that he was not 

expressing any opinion that Dr. Kang breached the standard of care in his treatment of 

Plaintiff. See Exhibit B, Deposition Testimony of Piotr Sobieszczyk, M.D., 45:6-46:18; 

111:3-16. 

 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests the Court enter an Order granting 

Plaintiff’s motion and excluding evidence of Dr. Kang’s social media posts under Federal 

Rules of Evidence 401, 402 and 403. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9877 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 4
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 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of January, 2018. 

GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. 

By: /s/ Mark S. O’Connor 

Mark S. O’Connor 

2575 East Camelback Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016-9225 

LOPEZ McHUGH LLP 

Ramon Rossi Lopez (CA Bar No. 86361) 

(admitted pro hac vice) 

100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600 

Newport Beach, California 92660 

Co-Lead/Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of January, 2018, I electronically transmitted 

the attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ Gay Mennuti 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9877 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 4