Christiansen et al v. Wright Medical Technology Incorporated et al
| Robyn Christiansen and Gene Christiansen |
| Wright Medical Technology Incorporated and Wright Medical Group Inc |
| 1:2013cv00297 |
| January 29, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| XX US, Outside State |
| William S. Duffey |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
250
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial and to Amend the Judgment 241 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED w ith respect to Defendant's motion to reduce the punitive damage award. The award of $10,000,000 in punitive damages is reduced to $1,100,000. It is DENIED on all other grounds. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 4/5/2016. Associated Cases: 1:12-md-02329-WSD, 1:13-cv-00297-WSD(anc)
|
|
Filing
194
OPINION AND ORDER on the Parties' Position Statements Regarding Witness/Evidentiary Issues.See conclusion of Order for specifics. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/2/2015. Associated Cases: 1:12-md-02329-WSD, 1:13-cv-00297-WSD(anc) Modified on 11/3/2015 in order to add opinion info (anc).
|
|
Filing
192
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff Robyn Christiansen's Motion in Limine 172 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED, and Defendants are precluded from presenting evidence: (1) that an award of punitive damages will have a chilling effect on the development of new joint replacement products, and (2) that Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Merck. Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED regarding evidence of: (1) Defendants' net wealth and the financial impact a punitive damages award would have on their business; (2) the good character of Defendants' employees and witnesses; and (3) Plaintiff's prior workers' compensation claims. The Court RESERVES for trial its ruling whether evidence of Defendants' good corporate character is admissible. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion in Limine 171 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion is GRAN TED, and Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence: (1) of registry data and revision and failure rates for the Conserve Hip Implant System; (2) of the patients Dr. Rasmussen is "monitoring" for signs of metallosis; (3) of other lawsu its concerning the Conserve Hip Implant System; (4) of Defendants' conduct or knowledge that post-dates Plaintiff's implantation surgery and studies, testing, and research Defendants conducted after Plaintiff's implantation surgery; (5 ) concerning other manufacturers' hip implant products and product decisions; (6) concerning marketing materials that were not reviewed or relied upon by Dr. Rasmussen; (7) of Ms. Timmerman's 2005 lawsuit against Wright Medical; (8) of the business implications for Defendants of revision surgeries and the profit it earns from pull through dollars; (9) of Defendants' personnel decisions and employee turnover; and (10) concerning a duty to make a product "safe and effective.&qu ot; Defendants' Motion is DENIED regarding evidence of: (1) complaints regarding metal ions and metallosis in patients implanted with the Conserve Hip Implant System that Defendants were aware of before Plaintiff's implantation surgery, an d (2) Dr. Rasmussen's testimony regarding his observations during Plaintiff's revision surgery and his experience with metallosis and revision surgeries. The Court RESERVES for trial its ruling on whether evidence of the subpoena and the deferred prosecution agreement is admissible. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/30/2015. Associated Cases: 1:12-md-02329-WSD, 1:13-cv-00297-WSD(tcc)
|
|
Filing
167
OPINION AND ORDER that Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion To Exclude Testimony Relating to Metallosis 52 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Dr. Brent W. Morgans expert opinion that the failure of Plaintiffs hip implant was caused by metallosis and Dr. Susanne Parisian's expert opinion regarding Plaintiff's metallosis are excluded. The remaining experts identified in Defendants' Motion To Exclude Testimony Relating to Metallosis are entitled to provide their expert opinions related to metallosis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Jay M. Vin celli, MSc, and John D. Jarrell, Ph.D., PE 50 is GRANTED. Dr. Jay M. Vincelli's expert testimony regarding his calculation of the immeasurable wear on Plaintiff's hip implant is excluded. To the extent Dr. John D. Jarrell relies on Dr. V incelli's simulated wear volume calculation methodology in rendering his expert opinion, those opinions are excluded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion to E xclude the Expert Testimony of Reed Ayers, Ph.D. 51 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Lance A. Waller, Ph.D. 49 is GRANTED. Dr. Lance A. Waller's expert opinion regarding the alleged inaccuracies in Defendants' 2010 Report and his comparison of the revision rates in this report to the revision registries he reviewed, is excluded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that Defendant Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 38 is DENIED. Plaintiff Robyn Christiansen's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Deborah Daurer 121 is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Wrigh t Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 140 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's failure to warn claims (Counts II and III) and Plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED on Plaintiff's remaining claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robyn Christiansen's Motion for Par tial Summary Judgment 20 and Defendants Wright Medical Technology, Inc.'s and Wright Medical Group, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 24 , filed on January 9, 2015, are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties' Motion s to Seal 18 , 19 , 54 , 56 , 91 , 93 , 99 , 120 , 124 , 131 , 141 , 142 , 160 , 161 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motions to Seal are GRANTED only to the extent that the Parties shall refile the pleadings and supporting documentation originally filed under seal with redactions limited only to the specific confidential or proprietary information the Parties assert must be kept from public view. The Parties must submit redacted versions of the pleadings and supporting documentation on or before October 19, 2015, along with an explanation for why each redaction is necessary to protect confidential or proprietary information. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/31/2015. (anc)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Georgia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
