Latimore v. C R Bard Incorporated
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:19-cv-09872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Latimore v. C.R. Bard, Judge Netburn resolved four discovery disputes by limiting discovery and ordering medical-record production.
The parties in the two captioned cases, including Bonnie Latimore, Michael Kar, C.R. Bard Incorporated, and the other defendants.
What happened
In Latimore v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, the court ruled on four discovery disputes in cases brought by Bonnie Latimore and Michael Kar. The court found that shared discovery from earlier multidistrict litigation did not need to be repeated and that further general discovery was not justified.
The court limited discovery to facts and expert evidence specific to each case, declined to require plaintiff fact sheets, and required the plaintiffs to authorize ten years of medical records from before their implants. The parties were told to discuss additional records, and the defendants may file a separate request to compel them if needed. Defendants may also serve rebuttal expert reports within 14 days after the plaintiffs' reports.
Sarah Netburn, the United States magistrate judge who signed the order, issued these discovery rulings on January 21, 2020.
The detailed version
- Latimore v. C R Bard Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-09872
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
The order addresses four discovery disputes in two related cases: Bonnie Latimore's case, No. 19-CV-09872 (LAK)(SN), and Michael Kar's case, No. 19-CV-09876 (LAK)(SN), both against C.R. Bard Incorporated and other defendants. The parties appeared for an initial pretrial conference on January 7, 2020, and then submitted letters addressing the disputes.
The court noted that common fact and expert discovery had already been completed in multidistrict litigation, a process that coordinates pretrial proceedings involving related cases. The court therefore considered whether additional shared discovery was necessary in the individual cases.
Rulings
The court ruled that supplemental general discovery was not necessary. Unless the parties showed good cause, discovery would be limited to facts and expert evidence specific to each case. The plaintiffs had not shown good cause. The court also ruled that later-issued expert studies did not justify reopening general discovery, although experts could discuss those studies if the required disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 were made.
The court found plaintiff fact sheets unnecessary and directed the parties to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It required the plaintiffs to authorize production of ten years of medical records from before their implants. The parties had to meet and discuss the defendants' additional requests for employment, insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, prescription and pharmacy, workers' compensation, Social Security, and disability records. If they could not agree, the defendants could file a separate motion to compel production.
Finally, the court allowed the defendants to serve a rebuttal expert report within 14 days after the plaintiffs served their reply or rebuttal report, consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(D)(ii).
Disposition
The order resolved the four discovery disputes as described above. It did not decide the underlying claims. The order was signed by Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge, and dated January 21, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.