Caldera et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al, No. 1:2020cv00081 - Document 63 (D. Colo. 2020)
Court Description: Wave 3 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert ruling re: Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D.) re: 34 -9 on 02/13/2020. (rvill, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Caldera et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al Doc. 63 Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 4186 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 143555 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: ETHICON INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2327 ______________________________________________________________________________ THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Wave 3 Cases Identified in Exhibit A attached hereto ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert ruling re: Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D.) Pending before the court is the defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony and Opinions of Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D. [ECF No. 2817] filed on September 19, 2016. For reasons appearing to the court, the court ORDERS that the Memorandum Opinion and Order (Daubert Motion re: Bruce Rosenzweig, M.D.) [ECF No. 2668] (“Prior Order”) entered on August 26, 2016, as to the Ethicon Wave 1 cases is ADOPTED in the Wave 3 cases identified in Exhibit A. 1 The Prior Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 2 Importantly, the court notes that the expert opinions proffered in Wave 1 are in almost every respect identical to those proffered here. The court has found, however, that with each entered Order, the experts in these cases attempt to bolster or fine-tune the support for their opinions, but the opinions themselves do not change. Accordingly, On Exhibit A, I have marked through cases that are closed, on the inactive docket, not in Wave 3, could not be identified because of an error in the style or case number, or assigned to another District Judge. 1 I have attached as Exhibit C, an index identifying the pleadings, including motions, memoranda, exhibits, responses, replies and Memorandum Opinions and Orders filed in the main MDL 2327 related to this expert. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 4186 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 143556 the court will refrain from engaging in the extremely inefficient practice of continuously reexamining the qualifications, reliability, and relevance of dozens of experts and their numerous opinions. While the parties continue to challenge even the slightest alteration to the underlying support for an expert’s opinion, the court’s review of the parties’ arguments reveals that these refreshed Daubert challenges are different from previous arguments by only the very slightest of degrees. The court FINDS that to the extent that the parties raise arguments not previously addressed by the court’s Prior Order, the trial judge may easily resolve these issues at trial without the need for further briefing or an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that to the extent that the parties raise Daubert challenges not previously addressed in the court’s Prior Order—fully adopted herein—those challenges are RESERVED for trial. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of this Order Adopting Memorandum Opinion and Order in 2:12-md-2327 and in the Ethicon Wave 3 cases identified in the Exhibit attached hereto. ENTER: 2 July 20, 2017
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
