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 #7 

AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

TO EXCLUDE PRIOR JUDICIAL 

OPINIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S 

EXPERTS 

(The Honorable David G. Campbell) 

(Oral Argument Requested) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO 

EXCLUDE PRIOR JUDICIAL OPINIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS 

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

prior judicial opinions about Plaintiff’s experts, including the number of times those 

experts’ testimony has been precluded or stricken by courts in other litigations. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Opinions of other courts regarding the admissibility of Plaintiff’s experts’ opinions 

in other litigations are irrelevant to the issues being tried in the present case. Bard should 

be precluded from misleading or confusing the jury by introducing testimony on the 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9872 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 

number of times any of the experts supporting Plaintiff’s case have been precluded from 

testifying in other cases. By so doing, Bard would be attempting to circumvent the 

decisions of the courts admitting those experts. This Court alone determines the scope of 

what Plaintiff’s experts are qualified to testify about regardless of prior courts’ opinions. 

The injection and introduction of this prejudicial information to the jury would be an 

attempt by Bard to distract the jury with irrelevant and highly prejudicial commentary in 

conflict with this Court’s decision in relation to the experts’ qualifications in this case. 

In Wilson v. Maricopa County, this Court concluded that an expert's 

disqualification in a previous trial was of “dubious relevance” to the case before the 

Court. Wilson v. Maricopa County, CV-04-2873 PHXDGC, 2007 WL 686726, at *11 (D. 

Ariz. Mar. 2, 2007). Several factors not available to the current Court, such as the point at 

which the disqualification occurred, the quality of advocacy by the attorneys, what other 

evidence had been presented, and a host of other factors might well have influenced the 

trial judge's decision. Id. As such, this Court found that the qualification of an expert is 

reserved for the current court and jury, and “not a judge in a different case, to decide.” Id. 

Further, such testimony would inevitably lead to a “trial within a trial” concerning 

issues and other unrelated facts that have nothing to do with the causes of action, the facts, 

the standards of care, the damages or any other aspect of this case. These “mini-trials” 

would be particularly wasteful, confusing to the jury, and prejudicial to Plaintiff. The 

prejudicial impact of introducing prior disqualifications of Plaintiff’s trial experts in other 

jurisdictions would be extremely high, in that the jury could simply assume the outcome 

in prior cases involving those experts directly applies to this case. Plaintiff would be 

required to spend a substantial amount of time discussing and explaining the previous 

court’s opinion, which could include explanation of the different circumstances between 

the prior cases and this case and/or discussing how the other court erred in reaching its 

decision. Any supposed probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by 

the numerous dangers associated with the admission of such evidence. Fed. Rules of Evid. 

401, 403. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9872 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 

The Court has determined the admissibility of Plaintiff’s experts’ opinions. If the 

Court allows Bard to discuss prior rulings concerning experts, Bard would essentially be 

allowed to reargue challenges to the qualifications of experts in front of the jury. This 

would not only create a danger of unfair prejudice, but also confuse the issues of the case 

and mislead the jury. This Court made the determination whether Plaintiff’s experts are 

qualified to testify and what the scope of that testimony can be, and in making that 

decision the Court considered prior courts’ opinions. Defendants should not be allowed to 

second-guess this Court’s decision in front of the jury by presenting the judicial opinion of 

a different judge presiding over a different matter. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests an Order granting this motion and 

prohibiting at trial all evidence and argument relating to other judicial opinions on 

Plaintiff’s experts. 

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 9872 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 3