United States District Court, D. Arizona
IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 10
David G. Campbell United States District Judge
The Court held a third case management conference with the parties on March 31, 2016. The conference was scheduled to address ongoing matters and a number of issues identified in Case Management Order No. 8 (“CMO 8”) (Doc. 519).
I. Second Phase Discovery.
A. Fact Discovery.
Fact discovery is under way. The parties reported that they have scheduled seven depositions and are in the process of scheduling more. The parties also continue to discuss a number of discovery issues that will be addressed later in this Order. The parties are encouraged to continue exchanging relevant information on discovery topics on which they agree, even if other issues need to be presented to the Court.
The Court asked the parties whether special deposition scheduling is needed, such as blocking out specific weeks for depositions and double-tracking or triple-tracking depositions. Counsel stated they do not believe such deposition scheduling is needed at this time. The parties should provide an update on this issue in the status report to be filed before the next case management conference.
B. Mature Cases.
Case Management Order No. 4 (as amended) identifies 13 mature cases that are not governed by the Master Complaint and Master Responsive Pleading and that are not generally subject to ongoing discovery. After further discussion, the parties have agreed that the Conn, Milton, and Mintz cases identified in Case Management Order No. 4 (Doc. 1108) should no longer be treated as mature cases. Rather, they will be treated as all other cases in this MDL. The remaining 10 cases identified in CMO 4 will continue to be treated as mature cases under that CMO. The parties should address these cases in the joint status report they file before the next case management conference, and particularly when these cases will be ready for remand.
II. Bellwether Selection Process.
Consistent with the direction in CMO 8, the parties have addressed an appropriate bellwether selection process. They have submitted a stipulation related to the process (Doc. 923), and a stipulation regarding fact sheets to be exchanged during the process (Doc. 1153).
The Court discussed the proposed procedures and fact sheets with the parties, making some suggestions for modifications. The parties will make modifications to their stipulations and, by April 15, 2016, provide the Court with a stipulated case management order to govern the bellwether selection process and fact sheets.
As part of this work, the parties will provide the Court with a stipulated order regarding the collection of records. This stipulated order will be provided by April 15, 2016.
While discussing the bellwether process, the Court discussed the issue of Lexecon waivers. The parties will confer to see if they can agree on a procedure for dealing with Lexecon waivers. Plaintiffs’ counsel are of the view that such issues should be addressed up front so as not to interfere with the selection of cases after much work has been invested in the bellwether pool. Defense counsel does not disagree, but expressed concern about choosing the Bellwether pool solely from cases in which Plaintiffs have agreed to waive Lexecon. The Court described for the parties the approaches taken in a number of other MDL cases. The parties will confer to ...