United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
IN RE ETHICON INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Cases Identified in Exhibit A attached hereto
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DAUBERT
RULING RE: HOWARD JORDI, PH.D.)
C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
21, 2016, defendants filed a Notice of Adoption of
Ethicon's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of
Howard Jordi, PH.D. Filed in Wave 1 [ECF No. 2406]. The court
ORDERS that the Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Daubert Motion re: Howard Jordi, Ph.D.) [ECF No.
2699] entered on August 31, 2016 as to the Ethicon Wave 1
cases is ADOPTED in the Wave 2
cases identified in Exhibit A. The Memorandum Opinion and
Order (Daubert Motion re: Howard Jordi, Ph.D.) is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
court DIRECTS the Clerk to file a copy of
this Order Adopting Memorandum Opinion and Order in
2:12-md-2327 and in the Ethicon Wave 2 cases identified in
the Exhibit attached hereto.
Sandra Childress, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
Jennifer Cooper, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
Diann Martin, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.
Melissa Sanders, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson,
Nancy Smallwood, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION
RE: ETHICON INC. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCT LIABILITY
DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Identified in the Exhibit Attached Hereto
OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motion re: Howard Jordi,
before the court is the Motion to Exclude the Opinions and
Testimony of Howard Jordi, Ph.D. [ECF No. 1983] filed by
Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (collectively
“Ethicon”). The Motion is now ripe for
consideration because briefing is complete.
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
75, 000 cases currently pending, approximately 30, 000 of
which are in this MDL.
MDL, the court's tasks include “resolv[ing]
pretrial issues in a timely and expeditious manner” and
“resolv[ing] important evidentiary disputes.”
Barbara J. Rothstein & Catherine R. Borden, Fed. Judicial
Ctr., Managing Multidistrict Litigation in
Products Liability Cases 3 (2011). To handle motions to
exclude or to limit expert testimony pursuant to Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993), the court developed a specific procedure. In Pretrial
Order (“PTO”) No. 217, the court instructed the
parties to file only one Daubert motion per
challenged expert, to file each motion in the main MDL-as
opposed to the individual member cases-and to identify which
cases would be affected by the motion. PTO No. 217, at
plunging into the heart of the Motion, a few preliminary
matters need to be addressed.
compelled to comment on the parties' misuse of my
previous Daubert rulings on several of the experts
offered in this case. See generally Sanchez v. Bos. Sci.
Corp., No. 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 4851989 (S.D. W.Va.
Sept. 29, 2014); Tyree v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 54
F.Supp.3d 501 (S.D. W.Va. 2014); Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci.
Corp., 57 F.Supp.3d 658 (S.D. W.Va. 2014). The parties
have, for the most part, structured their Daubert
arguments as a response to these prior rulings, rather than
an autonomous challenge to or defense of expert testimony
based on its reliability and relevance. In other words, the
parties have comparatively examined expert testimony and have
largely overlooked Daubert's core considerations
for assessing expert testimony. Although I recognize the
tendency of my prior evidentiary determinations to influence