Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Medtronic PLC
-
Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 Linda Lokkart et al v. Aziyo Biologics, Inc et al
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | California Central
Text Only Scheduling Notice
TEXT ONLY ENTRY (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Hernan D. Vera: Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds DEFENDANTS MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC. AND SPINALGRAFT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 66 appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing set for 05/09/24 is hereby vacated and the matter taken off calendar. The matter will be deemed submitted on the vacated hearing date.THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (wm) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
-
Order | Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 Frank v. Medtronic Minimed, Inc. et al
Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability | Missouri Western
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
ORDERED Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. #19) is, with Plaintiffs having no objection, GRANTED. Defendants are granted leave to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before June 3, 2024. Motions of this type are properly filed at least three days before the filing deadline established by rule or Court Order. Signed on 5/8/2024 by District Judge Brian C Wimes. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.
-
Order | Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 IN RE: Covidien Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation No. II
Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability | Massachusetts
Order
Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.
"The court has reviewed 297 the parties' further joint status report regarding the deposition re-scheduling and appreciates their continued cooperation. The court asks that the parties file a further joint status report by June 10, 2024.
The court has also reviewed 295 the parties' joint status report outlining the discovery dispute remaining after further conference on 287 plaintiffs' motion to compel. See 292 , denying 287 without prejudice to renewal and ordering further conference and joint status report. The court acknowledges plaintiffs' request for a hearing, see 295 at 1, but does not believe that a hearing is necessary given the straightforward nature of the remaining dispute. In the interest of moving the case along, the court rules as follows:
The court declines to order defendants to forego a relevancy review or, in the alternative, to produce a relevancy log, as plaintiffs request. See 295 at 4-6. "[T]he scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) begins with relevance, so [plaintiffs are] not entitled to discovery that is not relevant. [Defendants are] therefore entitled to cull for relevance. Willmore v. Savvas Learning Co. LLC, #22-cv-2352-TC-ADM, 2023 WL 6124045, at *9-10 (D. Kan. Sept. 19, 2023) (Mitchell, M.J.) (also declining to order production of relevancy log where defendant described withheld documents adequately, including in response to request for production); Parker v. Atl. City Bd. of Ed., #15-cv-8712 (JHR/JS), 2017 WL 662979, at *3-4 (D. N.J. Feb. 17, 2017) (In the absence of good cause that does not exist here, parties have to rely on the good faith and integrity of opposing counsel to do what they are supposed to do). Neither of the cases cited by plaintiffs, see 295 at 6, persuade the court that such an order is appropriate in this, very different, case. Borizov v. Olsen-Foxon, #19 C 7549, 2023 WL 2587879 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2023), involves a claim under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, see id. at *1, and the relevance log that the Magistrate Judge gave the Department of Corrections the option of producing as an alternative to production of all allegedly irrelevant emails pertained to a relatively small number of emails, see id. at *3 n.4 (referring to review of "hundreds" of emails for relevance); see also U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. #19-cv-7549, #103 (prior e-order refining ESI discovery based on "hit report," #99 at 7, listing 7 custodians with 0 to 718 apparent hits); #127 (status report indicating that DOC produced some emails and relevancy log for withheld emails); #129 (subsequent e-order denying plaintiff's oral motion to compel production of specific withheld emails). Similarly, in SRS Acquiom Inc. v. PNC Finan. Srvcs. Grp., Inc., #19-cv-02005-DDD-SKC, 2023 WL 6796431 (D. Colo. July 7, 2023), which involved alleged trade secret disclosure to new employers, see id. at *1, what defendants represented were "hundreds" of communications were between one defendant and a single prospective witness whose relationship with that defendant was determined to have a potential effect on his credibility. Id. at *3. The court accepts defendants representation that producing a relevancy log would be "enormously complicated and burdensome" where relevancy review, so far, has resulted in the production of roughly 1.8 million documents. 295 at 10.
The court also declines to order defendants to run searches for "unique" search terms without using any limiting terms and connectors, as plaintiffs request. Id. at 3-4. For one, as of April 29, when the j... (truncated)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login