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 

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 #3 

AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

TO EXCLUDE DESCRIPTIONS OF 

FILTERS AS “LIFESAVING” OR 

“LIFE-EXTENDING” DEVICES 

(The Honorable David G. Campbell) 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 

EXCLUDE DESCRIPTIONS OF FILTERS AS “LIFESAVING” OR “LIFEEXTENDING” DEVICES 

Plaintiff moves in limine for an Order precluding evidence and argument relating 

to Bard’s IVC Filter devices as “lifesaving” or “life-extending” devices. Such arguments 

go beyond the indications of the device, and any such testimony or argument is not 

relevant. Even if it were relevant, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the 

danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, and/or needlessly 

presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 403. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9867 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 3
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 

In similar litigations regarding products used to prevent bone loss in patients 

whose cancer metastasized to their bones, the plaintiffs filed motions in limine to prevent 

the defense from describing the drugs or their benefits as a “wonder drug,” “miracle 

drug,” “prolongs life,” “extends life,” or “cures cancer.” Stanley v. Novartis Pharm. 

Corp., 2014 WL 12573393, at *12 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014); accord Georges v. Novartis 

Pharm. Corp., 2013 WL 5217198, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2013) (quoting Bessemer v. 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. MID–L–1835–08–MT (N.J. Sup. Ct. Law Div. 

June 11, 2010) (unpub. order)). Courts granted these motions and prevented the defense 

from so describing its drugs. Such arguments and opinions are both unverifiable and 

subjective, rendering the probative value of these opinions limited at best – they certainly 

offer no insight into or support of the efficacy of Bard’s IVC filter’s implanted in Ms. 

Booker. See, e.g., Stanley, 2014 WL 12573393, at *12. 

For the same reasons, Bard should not be allowed to describe its IVC filters as 

“life-saving” devices or any variation of its “filters save lives” defense. IVC filters are 

designed to prevent blood clots from traveling from the lower extremities of the body 

through the heart and to the lungs. Any other presumed benefit of IVC filters is 

speculative and outside the scope of the product’s Instructions for Use. Suggesting 

“filters save lives” is no different than the other products-liability defendants stating that 

its’ product prolongs or extends life; these are subjective opinions. See Stanley, 2014 WL 

12573393, at *12; Georges, 2013 WL 5217198, at *14 (holding that defendant “may not 

offer unverifiable, subjective opinions from its experts, such as Aredia or Zometa is a 

‘wonder drug,’ ‘miracle drug,’ ‘prolongs life,’ ‘extends life,’ or ‘cures cancer.’”). As the 

Georges Court noted, “[t]he probative value of these opinions is limited because the 

opinions offer no insight into the [products’] efficacy, and the risk of prejudice is high 

because the claims have not been proven.” See Stanley, 2014 WL 12573393, at *12 

(C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014). 

There is no evidence in this case that Ms. Booker’s IVC filter saved her life or 

even stopped a clot from traveling to her heart or lungs. Any suggestion that these 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9867 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 3
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 

devices are “life-saving” is more prejudicial than probative in the case at bar and should 

be excluded from the trial. 

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 9867 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 3