Madding v. Ethicon, Inc. et al, No. 2:2012cv02512 - Document 78 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motion re: Douglas Grier, M.D.) The 56 DAUBERT MOTION by Linda Madding to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of Douglas H. Grier, M.D. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is DENIED, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/30/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (brn)

Download PDF
Madding v. Ethicon, Inc. et al Doc. 78 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: Linda Madding v. Ethicon, Inc., et al. Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02512 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motion re: Douglas Grier, M.D.) Pending before the court is the Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of Douglas H. Grier, M.D. Pursuant to Federal Rule 702 [ECF No. 56] filed by the plaintiffs. The Motion is now ripe for consideration because briefing is complete. In her Motion, the plaintiff merely incorporates her arguments to exclude Dr. Grier’s general causation testimony and argues that the exclusion of Dr. Grier’s general causation testimony necessitates the exclusion of his specific causation testimony. However, the plaintiff neither cites to specific portions of Dr. Grier’s testimony nor attempts to show how the exclusion of his general causation testimony necessitates the exclusion of his specific causation testimony. I will not grant a motion that fails to lay out even a single, specific argument. The court ORDERS that the Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinion Testimony of Douglas H. Grier, M.D. Pursuant to Federal Rule 702 [ECF No. 56] is Dockets.Justia.com DENIED. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: 2 June 30, 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.