Couturier v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv12497 - Document 308 (E.D. La. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS:IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's 290 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED solely in order to reiterate in clarification prior evidentiary rulings in the following non-exhaustive particulars, as stated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's 291 motion to expedite is dismissed as moot in view of the above reiterative clarification. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 7/9/2021. (pp)

Download PDF
Couturier v. C.R. Bard Inc. et al Doc. 308 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CRAIG COUTURIER CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 19-12497 BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. AND C.R. BARD, INC. SECTION: “B”(2) ORDER AND REASONS IT IS ORDERED reconsideration (Rec. to reiterate in the in Doc. that 290) plaintiff’s is clarification following granted prior non-exhaustive motion solely in evidentiary for order rulings particulars: 1. In connection with the duty to warn claim, the sole triable matter remaining, evidence showing including tilt, parties are comparative migration, and allowed data on to present fracture perforation or trial rates, component embolization of the G2, G2X, and Eclipse filers. That evidence is relevant along with other evidence about the implanting physician, for assessing whether defendant adequately warned physicians about the risk of the Eclipse IVC filter, whether the implanting physician made himself aware of the risks from medical literature, warnings or other reliable sources and whether he would have declined use of the filter or suggested an available alternative; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2. Similar evidence about the Simon Nitinol and Gunther Tulip filters may become admissible upon showing foundational support for same in connection with the failure to warn claim; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to expedite (Rec. Doc. 291) is dismissed as moot in view of the above reiterative clarification. New Orleans, Louisiana this 9th day of July, 2021 ___________________________________ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.