Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc.

Background

Hsin Lin brought a products-liability action against Solta Medical, Inc. Lin alleges that she suffered severe second-degree burns during a January 23, 2019 skin treatment in Taiwan using a Thermage CPT device manufactured by Solta. The case includes claims for manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. A previously named co-defendant, Bausch Health Americas, Inc., was dismissed from the case.

Lin served Solta with a second set of discovery requests. Request for Production 14 sought complaint files maintained under 21 C.F.R. § 820.198(a) that mentioned any Thermage device. Request for Production 41 sought communications discussing or referencing the potential of any Thermage device to cause burns, blisters, rashes, or scars. The parties disagreed mainly about whether the requests covered earlier device versions and how Solta should search for responsive electronic communications.

Rulings

The court held that the parties must comply with the court’s standing order requiring discovery disputes to be presented first through a joint letter. The court stated that the letter is a prerequisite to filing a discovery motion and that the dispute, as described, did not require a motion to compel.

For Request for Production 14, the court ordered that the discovery be limited to materials concerning the model or generation of device involved in Lin’s complaint, rather than every device bearing the Thermage name. Solta did not have to produce publicly available information, but it had to identify that information as publicly available and provide the source. Solta had to produce underlying materials containing protected patient information, with that information redacted. Solta’s production of responsive materials in response to other requests did not eliminate its obligation to respond to Request 14, although Solta did not have to produce duplicate copies; it could identify where earlier responses contained the same materials.

For Request for Production 41, the court directed that the electronic-communications search be limited to the model or generation involved in the complaint and need not include Solta’s other products. The parties were directed to continue meeting and conferring about reasonable search terms, including the terms, people, and years to be searched.

Disposition

This was a discovery order addressing ongoing document and communications discovery. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered the order on December 4, 2023.