United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered March 21, 2017 [ECF No.
169] is hereby amended for erroneous ECF numbers.
before the court are all remaining pretrial motions. All are
ripe for adjudication.
case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use
of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse
(“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence
(“SUI”). In the seven MDLs, there are more than
58, 000 cases currently pending, approximately 7, 000 of
which are in the Bard MDL, MDL 2187. In an effort to
efficiently and effectively manage this MDL, I decided to
conduct pretrial discovery and motions practice on an
individualized basis so that once a case is trial-ready (that
is, after the court has ruled on all Daubert motions
and summary judgment motions, among other things), it can
then be promptly transferred or remanded to the appropriate
district for trial. To this end, I ordered the plaintiffs and
defendant to each select 50 cases, which would then become
part of a “wave” of cases to be prepared for
trial and, if necessary, remanded. See Pretrial
Order (“PTO”) # 102, No. 2:10-md-2187 [ECF No.
729]. This selection process was completed twice, creating
two waves of 100 cases, Wave 1 and Wave 2. Thereafter, I
entered orders on subsequent waves. Ms. Bowling's case
was selected as a Wave 1 case by the plaintiffs. PTO # 118,
No. 2:10-md-2187 [ECF No. 841].
obtain summary judgment, “the movant must show that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In turn, to avoid summary judgment, the
nonmovant must offer some “concrete evidence from which
a reasonable juror could return a verdict” in his or
her favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 256 (1986).
Choice of Law
28 U.S.C. § 1407, this court has authority to rule on
pretrial motions in MDL cases. To determine the applicable
state law for a dispositive motion, the court generally
refers to the choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction where
the plaintiff first filed her claim. See In re Air
Disaster at Ramstein Air Base, Ger., 81 F.3d 570, 576
(5th Cir. 1996); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chi.,
Ill., 644 F.2d 594, 610 (7th Cir. 1981); In re
Digitek Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2:08-md-01968, 2010
WL 2102330, at *7 (S.D. W.Va. May 25, 2010).
plaintiff files her claim directly into the MDL in the
Southern District of West Virginia, as the plaintiff did
here, I consult the choice-of-law rules of the state in which
the implantation surgery took place-in this case, Tennessee.
See Sanchez v. Bos. Sci. Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05762,
2014 WL 202787, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 17, 2014) (“For
cases that originate elsewhere and are directly filed into
the MDL, I will follow the better-reasoned authority that
applies the choice-of-law rules of the originating
jurisdiction, which in our case is the state in which the
plaintiff was implanted with the product.”).
law employs “the most significant relationship
test” to determine which state's substantive law to
apply in a tort action. Hataway v. McKinley, 830
S.W.2d 53, 59 (Tenn. 1992). Under this test, the court must
evaluate the contacts of each interested state and determine
which state “has the most significant contacts”
with the lawsuit. Id. In doing so, the court
balances four factors: “(a) the place where the injury
occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties, [and] (d)
the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties
is centered.” Id. Here, the plaintiff is a
resident of Tennessee, Ms. Bowling was implanted with the
product at issue in Tennessee, and her alleged injuries
occurred in Tennessee. Accordingly, I will apply
Tennessee's substantive law to this case.
Daubert Motions - Specific Causation
testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified and if his
or her expert testimony is reliable and relevant. Fed.R.Evid.
702; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579 (1993). An expert may be qualified to offer
expert testimony based on his or her ...