Johnson v. C R Bard Incorporated

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN NATALIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 19-cv-760-wmc C.R. BARD INC. and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC., Defendants.

Before the court is the parties’ request for ruling on objections to certain deposition designations as to Robert Carr.

April 17, 2013, Deposition: DEPON- PL AFFIRM DEF OBJECTIONS PL RESPONSE COURT ENT TO RULING OBJECTIONS Bard objects to Plaintiff’s references to “Admitted in the Peterson case” as a basis for allowing a designation to played, or overruling an objection, and submits that the testimony should be consider based on the facts and applicable law and rulings in this case.

The Peterson case involved a different filter, different claims, and was different state law.

Carr, Rob 5:08-5:19 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are Plaintiff will only previously provide designated, this is testimony as to duplicative and Mr. Carr’s cumulative of background and testimony work history one designated in the time. four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 9:01-9:05 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are Plaintiff has previously reduced the designated, this is designation to duplicative and 09:01-09:05 and cumulative of 10:13-10:24 testimony designated in the four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 10:13-10:24 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are previously designated, this is duplicative and cumulative of testimony designated in the four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 11:20-11:22 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are Plaintiff will only designated, this is testimony as to duplicative and Mr. Carr’s cumulative of background and testimony work history one designated in the time. four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 12:04-12:07 This testimony is Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 duplicative and Peterson Case cumulative of testimony designated in the four other depositions of Mr. Carr and several other of Bard's employees and former employees.

Carr, Rob 12:18-12:22 Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 403-As is indicated Peterson Case AS TO below much of the Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, testimony Carr to respond OTHERWISE designated below to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED exceeded the scope notice not the of the notice of the Plaintiff, deposition. Plainitff therefore he is should not be able testifying for the to imply that Mr. company. At all Carr was speaking times relevant to on behalf of the the deposition company when he and subject was responding to matter of the questions in his testimony Mr. personal capacity Carr was an because counsel officer and asked questions that manager at Bard. exceeded the scope of the notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

04/17/2013 removing 13:15-16, Peterson Case without notice this Plaintiff will only testimony is out of provide context. Must keep testimony as to 13:15-16 to denote Mr. Carr’s the scope of the background and witness' testimony. work history one Moreover, to the time. extent Mr. Carr's FRCP 32 (6) and background and FRE 106 only work history are require the previously inclusion of designated, this is matters that “in duplicative and fairness should be cumulative of considered with testimony the part designated in the introduced.” This four other designation depositions of Mr. involves a new Carr. line of question and separate issue from the testimony offered therefore optional completeness is not required. The Plaintiff should be permitted to present the testimony requested and that follows with interruption by this testimony offered by defenses. Defense can play this testimony in cross.

Carr, Rob 13:25-14:10 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are Plaintiff will only previously provide designated, this is testimony as to duplicative and Mr. Carr’s testimony work history one designated in the time. four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 14:11-14:14 To the extent Mr. Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 Carr's background Peterson Case and work history are Plaintiff will only previously provide designated, this is testimony as to duplicative and Mr. Carr’s cumulative of background and testimony work history one designated in the time. four other depositions of Mr. Carr.

Carr, Rob 91:16-91:24 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 92:05-92:17 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 93:01-93:07 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 93:08-94:03 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 94:16-95:02 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 95:22-96:06 Admitted in the 04/17/2013 Peterson Case 04/17/2013 403. Testimony Peterson Case does not involve Bard chose to filter at issue and/or market the failure modes at Meridian filter issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as the predicate. All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in the context of the entire filter-line development.

Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819]. The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Carr, Rob 97:23-98:08 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 403. Testimony Peterson Case does not involve Bard chose to filter at issue and/or market the failure modes at Meridian filter issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as the predicate. All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in the context of the entire filter-line development.

Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819]. The relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Carr, Rob 98:11-98:12 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 403. Testimony Peterson Case does not involve Plaintiff has filter at issue and/or reduced this failure modes at designation to issue; Irrelevant and 98:11-98:12. any probative value Bard chose to outweighed by market the prejudicial effect. Meridian filter using the 510(k) process which relied upon the Recovery filter as the predicate. All G2 filter platform the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in the context of the entire filter-line development.

Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819]. The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications migration can lead to fracture.

Carr, Rob 105:05- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the OVERRULED 04/17/2013 105:13 403. Testimony Peterson Case does not involve Bard chose to filter at issue and/or market the failure modes at Meridian filter issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Testimony also history to the exceeds the scope of Recovery filter the notice of the and the defects in deposition. Plaintiff the Meridian should not be able design only can to imply that Mr. be understood Carr was speaking only in the on behalf of the context of the company when he entire filter-line was responding to development. questions in his Judge Campbell personal capacity agreed with this because counsel position in Jones asked questions that v. Bard. [MDL exceeded the scope Order No. of the notice of the 10819]. The 30(b)(6) deposition. failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 106:18- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 107:07 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve Bard chose to SCOPE, filter at issue and/or market the OTHERWISE failure modes at Meridian filter OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Testimony also history to the exceeds the scope of Recovery filter the notice of the and the defects in deposition. Plaintiff the Meridian should not be able design only can to imply that Mr. be understood Carr was speaking only in the on behalf of the context of the company when he entire filter-line was responding to development. questions in his Judge Campbell personal capacity agreed with this because counsel position in Jones asked questions that v. Bard. [MDL of the notice of the 10819]. The 30(b)(6) deposition. failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks an complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 107:08- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 108:12 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve SCOPE, filter at issue and/or OTHERWISE failure modes at OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and any probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect.

This testimony involves alleged issues with the G2 and G2X filters, not the filter at issue.

Testimony also exceeds the scope of the notice of the deposition. Plaintiff should not be able to imply that Mr. Carr was speaking on behalf of the company when he was responding to questions in his personal capacity because counsel asked questions that of the notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

Moreover, counsel is testifying -- simply reading the document and asking the witness if counsel read it correctly.

Carr, Rob 108:13- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 108:21 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve Bard chose to SCOPE, filter at issue and/or market the OTHERWISE failure modes at Meridian filter OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Rules 401, 402, history to the 403. Testimony also Recovery filter exceeds the scope of and the defects in the notice of the the Meridian deposition. Plaintiff design only can should not be able be understood to imply that Mr. only in the Carr was speaking context of the on behalf of the entire filter-line company when he development. was responding to Judge Campbell questions in his agreed with this personal capacity position in Jones because counsel v. Bard. [MDL asked questions that Order No. exceeded the scope 10819]. The of the notice of the failure modes are 30(b)(6) deposition. relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard. withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 108:22- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 108:25 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve Bard chose to SCOPE, filter at issue and/or market the OTHERWISE failure modes at Meridian filter OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Rules 401, 402, history to the 403. Testimony also Recovery filter exceeds the scope of and the defects in the notice of the the Meridian deposition. Plaintiff design only can should not be able be understood to imply that Mr. only in the Carr was speaking context of the on behalf of the entire filter-line company when he development. was responding to Judge Campbell questions in his agreed with this personal capacity position in Jones because counsel v. Bard. [MDL exceeded the scope 10819]. The of the notice of the failure modes are 30(b)(6) deposition. relevant to the Rules 601/602 & assessment of the 612. Lacks defects in the foundation, witness design of the does not have filter whether a personal knowledge particular failure of subject matter, mode has calls for speculation occurred; by the witness. however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 109:01- Rules 401, 402, Testimony RESERVED 04/17/2013 109:01 403. Testimony admitted at AS TO does not involve Bard's request in SCOPE, filter at issue and/or Peterson OTHERWISE failure modes at OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and any probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect.

This testimony involves alleged issues with the G2 and G2X filters, not the filter at issue.

Rules 401, 402, 403. Testimony also exceeds the scope of the notice of the deposition. Plaintiff should not be able to imply that Mr. Carr was speaking on behalf of the company when he was responding to questions in his personal capacity because counsel exceeded the scope of the notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

Rules 601/602 & 612. Lacks foundation, witness does not have personal knowledge of subject matter, calls for speculation by the witness.

Carr, Rob 109:05- Rules 401, 402, Testimony RESERVED 04/17/2013 109:09 403. Testimony admitted at AS TO does not involve Bard's request in SCOPE, filter at issue and/or Peterson OTHERWISE failure modes at OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and any probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect.

This testimony involves alleged issues with the G2 and G2X filters, not the filter at issue.

Rules 401, 402, 403. Testimony also exceeds the scope of the notice of the deposition. Plaintiff should not be able to imply that Mr. Carr was speaking on behalf of the company when he was responding to questions in his personal capacity because counsel asked questions that exceeded the scope of the notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

Rules 601/602 & 612. Lacks does not have personal knowledge of subject matter, calls for speculation by the witness.

Carr, Rob 109:16- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 109:18 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve Bard chose to SCOPE, filter at issue and/or market the OTHERWISE failure modes at Meridian filter OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Rules 401, 402, history to the 403. Testimony also Recovery filter exceeds the scope of and the defects in the notice of the the Meridian deposition. Plaintiff design only can should not be able be understood to imply that Mr. only in the Carr was speaking context of the on behalf of the entire filter-line company when he development. was responding to Judge Campbell questions in his agreed with this personal capacity position in Jones because counsel v. Bard. [MDL asked questions that Order No. exceeded the scope 10819]. The of the notice of the failure modes are 30(b)(6) deposition. relevant to the Rules 601/602 & assessment of the 612. Lacks defects in the foundation, witness design of the does not have filter whether a personal knowledge particular failure calls for speculation occurred; by the witness. however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The testimony is of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 109:21- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 110:01 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve SCOPE, filter at issue and/or OTHERWISE failure modes at OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and any probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect.

This testimony involves alleged issues with the G2 and G2X filters, not the filter at issue.

Rules 401, 402, 403. Testimony also exceeds the scope of the notice of the deposition. Plaintiff should not be able to imply that Mr. Carr was speaking on behalf of the company when he was responding to questions in his personal capacity because counsel exceeded the scope of the notice of the 30(b)(6) deposition.

Rules 601/602 & 612. Lacks foundation, witness does not have personal knowledge of subject matter, calls for speculation by the witness.

Carr, Rob 110:03- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 110:03 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO does not involve Bard chose to SCOPE, filter at issue and/or market the OTHERWISE failure modes at Meridian filter OVERRULED issue; Irrelevant and using the 510(k) any probative value process which outweighed by relied upon the prejudicial effect. Recovery filter as This testimony the predicate. All involves alleged G2 filter platform issues with the G2 filters, including and G2X filters, not the Meridian the filter at issue. trace their design Rules 401, 402, history to the 403. Testimony also Recovery filter exceeds the scope of and the defects in the notice of the the Meridian deposition. Plaintiff design only can should not be able be understood to imply that Mr. only in the Carr was speaking context of the on behalf of the entire filter-line company when he development. was responding to Judge Campbell questions in his agreed with this personal capacity position in Jones because counsel v. Bard. [MDL asked questions that Order No. exceeded the scope 10819]. The of the notice of the failure modes are 30(b)(6) deposition. relevant to the Rules 601/602 & assessment of the 612. Lacks defects in the does not have filter whether a personal knowledge particular failure of subject matter, mode has calls for speculation occurred; by the witness. however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

Bard chose Mr. Carr, its former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management, to respond to the 30(b)(6) notice not the Plaintiff, therefore he is testifying for the company. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 116:04- Admitted in the 04/17/2013 116:06 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 116:07- Admitted in the 04/17/2013 116:13 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 157:04- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 157:11 403. Testimony Peterson case AS TO exceeds the scope of Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the notice of the Carr, its former OTHERWISE deposition. Plaintiff Director of OVERRULED should not be able Research and to imply that Mr. Development and Carr was speaking current VP for on behalf of the Project company when he Management, to was responding to respond to the questions in his 30(b)(6) notice personal capacity not the Plaintiff, because counsel therefore he is asked questions that testifying for the exceeded the scope company. At all of the notice of the times relevant to 30(b)(6) deposition. the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

Carr, Rob 157:15- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 157:22 403. Testimony Peterson Case AS TO exceeds the scope of Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the notice of the Carr, its former OTHERWISE deposition. Plaintiff Director of OVERRULED should not be able Research and to imply that Mr. Development and Carr was speaking current VP for on behalf of the Project company when he Management, to was responding to respond to the questions in his 30(b)(6) notice personal capacity not the Plaintiff, because counsel therefore he is asked questions that testifying for the exceeded the scope company. At all of the notice of the times relevant to 30(b)(6) deposition. the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The testimony is withn the scope of the 30(b)(6) motion which included "the risks and complications associated with" the Bard filters.

04/17/2013 160:01 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 160:04- Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 160:11 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 160:15- Rules 401, 402 and Plaintiff has RESERVED 04/17/2013 160:17 403 - this line of reduced the AS TO questions exceeds designation to SCOPE, the scope of the 160:15 -160:17 OTHERWISE depositon notice Bard chose Mr. OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules Carr to respond 401, 402 and 403. to the 300(b)(6) Improper notice not the hypothetical and Plaintiff, assumes facts that therefore he is are not in evidence. testifying for the Testimony does not company. The involve filter at issue testimony relates and/or failure modes to the risks and at issue; Irrelevant benefits and any probative presented by value outweighed by Bard’s IVC filters prejudicial effect. and is within the scope of the notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 161:08- Rules 401, 402 and Bard chose Mr. RESERVED 04/17/2013 161:10 403 - this line of Carr to respond AS TO questions exceeds to the 30(b)(6) SCOPE, the scope of the notice not the OTHERWISE depositon notice Plaintiff, OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules therefore he is 401, 402 and 403. testifying for the Improper company. The hypothetical and testimony relates assumes facts that to the risks and are not in evidence. benefits Testimony does not presented by involve filter at issue Bard’s IVC filters and/or failure modes and is within the at issue; Irrelevant scope of the and any probative notice. At all prejudicial effect. the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 161:13- Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 161:14 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 161:16 Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds SCOPE, the scope of the (See 160:2-3). Rules OVERRULED 401, 402 and 403.

Improper hypothetical and assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Testimony does not involve filter at issue and/or failure modes at issue; Irrelevant and any probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect.

Carr, Rob 162:11- Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 162:15 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 162:18 Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 162:19- Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 162:23 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 162:24 Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The Hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical community is clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 163:20- Testimony 04/17/2013 163:21 admitted at Bard's request in Peterson 04/17/2013 164:08 Peterson Case Carr, Rob 165:14- Rules 401, 402 and Admitted in the RESERVED 04/17/2013 165:17 403 - this line of Peterson Case AS TO questions exceeds Bard chose Mr. SCOPE, the scope of the Carr to respond OTHERWISE depositon notice to the 30(b)(6) OVERRULED (See 160:2-3). Rules notice not the 401, 402 and 403. Plaintiff, Improper therefore he is hypothetical and testifying for the assumes facts that company. The are not in evidence. testimony relates Testimony does not to the risks and involve filter at issue benefits and/or failure modes presented by at issue; Irrelevant Bard’s IVC filters and any probative and is within the value outweighed by scope of the prejudicial effect. notice. At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard.

The hypothetical is based upon an event that actually occurred and was reported to Bard. [163:01- 163:17]. The Bard's conduct with regard to the communication of the known performance failures of its filters and the reported rate of such failures, or lack thereof, to the medical clearly relevant to the failure to warn and negligence claims.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

DEPON- DEF PL OBJECTIONS DEF COURT ENT COUNTER RESPONSE TO RULING OBJECTIONS Carr, Rob 13:25-14:10 FRCP 32 (6) and MOOT 04/17/2013 Subject to FRE 106 only objection and require the inclusion for of matters that “in completeness fairness should be considered with the part introduced.”

This designation involves a new line of question and separate issue from the testimony offered therefore optional completeness is not required. The Plaintiff should be permitted to present the testimony requested and that follows with interruption by this testimony offered by defenses. Defense can play this testimony in cross.

Carr, Rob 92:18-92:25 04/17/2013 04/17/2013 Carr, Rob 95:03-95:21 04/17/2013 Carr, Rob 96:07-96:18 04/17/2013 Carr, Rob 99:03-99:05 04/17/2013 Carr, Rob 99:08-99:17 FRCP 32(6) and SUSTAIN, 04/17/2013 FRE 106– Optional INCLUDE completeness – Page 99:18-99:24 99:18-99:24 completes the line of question requested by the defense and in fairness should be considered with the part introduced.

This is particularly necessary since defense resumes the testimony at 99:25 Carr, Rob 99:25-100:01 04/17/2013 Carr, Rob 100:04- 04/17/2013 100:05 Carr, Rob 105:14- 04/17/2013 105:22 Carr, Rob 109:01 FRE 403: testimony MOOT 04/17/2013 is already contained in Plaintiff's affirmatives so results in undue delay, waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence 04/17/2013 109:09 is already contained Subject to in Plaintiff's objection affirmatives so results in undue delay, waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence Carr, Rob 157:23- 04/17/2013 158:01 Carr, Rob 158:03- 04/17/2013 158:06 Carr, Rob 160:25- 04/17/2013 161:04 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 161:06- 04/17/2013 161:07 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 161:17- 04/17/2013 161:22 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 162:01- 04/17/2013 162:04 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 162:06- 04/17/2013 162:08 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 163:20- FRE 403: testimony MOOT 04/17/2013 163:21 is already contained in Plaintiff's objection results in undue delay, waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence Carr, Rob 164:15- 04/17/2013 164:18 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 164:20- 04/17/2013 164:21 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 165:01- 04/17/2013 165:13 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 166:02- 04/17/2013 166:07 Subject to objection Carr, Rob 166:19:166:2 04/17/2013 1 (ending with "experienced") Subject to objection Carr, Rob 166:24- 04/17/2013 167:02 (starting with "absolutely") objection

November 5, 2013, Deposition: DEPON- PL AFFIRM DEF PL RESPONSE TO COURT ENT OBJECTIONS OBJECTIONS RULING Bard objects to Plaintiff’s references to “Admitted in the Peterson case” as a basis for allowing a designation to played, or overruling an objection, and submits that the testimony should be consider based on the facts and applicable law and rulings in this case. The Peterson case involved a different filter, different claims, and was decided under different state law.

Carr, Rob 41:11-41:15 Admitted in 11/05/2013 Peterson Carr, Rob 44:05-44:10 Admitted in 11/05/2013 Peterson Carr, Rob 87:24-88:03 Admitted in 11/05/2013 Peterson 11/05/2013 12 are necessary Peterson for completeness. FRCP 32(6) AND FRE 106 only requires completeness that "in fairness ought to be considered at the same time".

Defendants have not demonstrated why this testimony, in the name of fairness, must be considered at the same time as Plaintiff's designation.

Defendants can include it in their cross.

Carr, Rob 134:10- Rule 803 - counsel Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 134:20 is reading from a Peterson document that is The fact the not in evidence. document "is not in See lines 6 and 7 evidence" is not a ("turn to the next proper objection. page") The document being discussed is a copy of is a copy of 21 CFR 882 which address a medical device manufacturer's obligations regardingpost market survellance and is a proper subject for examination of this witness and relevant testimony with regard Bard's negligence. (128:09- language in a regulation is not an out of court "statement" as that term is defined by FRE 801.

Carr, Rob 134:23 Admitted in 11/05/2013 Peterson Carr, Rob 135:01- Admitted in 11/05/2013 135:02 Peterson Carr, Rob 135:07- Admitted in 11/05/2013 135:08 Peterson Carr, Rob 135:10- Testimony admitted 11/05/2013 135:12 at Bard's request in Peterson Carr, Rob 135:14- Testimony admitted 11/05/2013 135:14 at Bard's request in Peterson Carr, Rob 135:15- Incomplete Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 135:19 answer. Answer Peterson starts on 135:10- FRCP 32(6) and 14. Answer is out FRE 106 only of text without the requires added language completeness that "in fairness ought to be considered at the same time".

Defendants have not demonstrated why this testimony, in the name of fairness, must be considered at the same time as Plaintiff's designation.

Carr, Rob 135:21- Admitted in 11/05/2013 135:22 Peterson 11/05/2013 136:03 Peterson Carr, Rob 191:16- Rules 401, 402 Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 191:22 and 403. This Peterson relates to the Recovery filter. It is confusing and serves no purpose other than to confuse and prejudice the jury.

If the testimony is allowed the counters on 192 are necessary for completeness.

Carr, Rob 193:24- Rules 401, 402 Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 194:02 and 403. This Peterson relates to the Recovery filter. It is confusing and serves no purpose other than to confuse and prejudice the jury.

If the testimony is allowed the counters on 192 are necessary for completeness.

Carr, Rob 194:05 Rules 401, 402 Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 beginning and 403. This Peterson with "We…" relates to the Recovery filter. It is confusing and serves no purpose other than to confuse and prejudice the jury.

If the testimony is allowed the counters on 192 completeness.

Carr, Rob 265:09- Rules 401, 402 Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 265:13 and 403. This Peterson relates to the All G2 filter Recovery filter. It platform filters, is confusing and including the serves no purpose Meridian trace their other than to design history to the confuse and Recovery filter and prejudice the jury. the defects in the If the testimony is Meridian design allowed the only can be counters on 265- understood only in are necessary the context of the for completeness. entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 265:15- Rules 401, 402 Admitted in OVERRULED 11/05/2013 265:16 and 403. This Peterson relates to the All G2 filter Recovery filter. It platform filters, is confusing and including the serves no purpose Meridian trace their other than to design history to the confuse and Recovery filter and prejudice the jury. the defects in the If the testimony is Meridian design allowed the only can be counters on 265- understood only in are necessary the context of the for completeness. entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony ios relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 268:05- Rule 602-Witness Admitted in SUSTAIN 11/05/2013 268:06 is not familiar Peterson with the The Federal Rules of document and has Evidence do not not seen it before. prohibit a party See, 268:8-15. from questioning Rules 401, 402, witnesses about – Testimony admissible does not involve documents the filter at issue witness does not and/or failure recall having seen mode at issue; before. “Personal Irrelevant and any knowledge of a fact probative value ‘is not an absolute’ outweighed by to Rule 602's prejudicial effect. foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013).

At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. and manager at Bard whiwho should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter. . All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in the context of the entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 268:08- Rule 602-Witness Testimony Admitted SUSTAIN 11/05/2013 268:09 is not familiar at Bard's request in with the Peterson document and has not seen it before.

See, 268:8-15 Carr, Rob 268:10- Rule 602-Witness SUSTAIN 11/05/2013 268:15 is not familiar with the document and has not seen it before.

See, 268:8-15 11/05/2013 290:19 is not familiar Peterson with the The Federal Rules of document and has Evidence do not not seen it before. prohibit a party See, 268:8-15. from questioning Rules 401, 402, witnesses about – Testimony admissible does not involve documents the filter at issue witness does not and/or failure recall having seen mode at issue; before. “Personal Irrelevant and any knowledge of a fact probative value ‘is not an absolute’ outweighed by to Rule 602's prejudicial effect. foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013).

At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard whiwho should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter. . All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

11/05/2013 290:22 is not familiar Peterson with the The Federal Rules of document and has Evidence do not not seen it before. prohibit a party See, 268:8-15. from questioning Rules 401, 402, witnesses about – Testimony admissible does not involve documents the filter at issue witness does not and/or failure recall having seen mode at issue; before. “Personal Irrelevant and any knowledge of a fact probative value ‘is not an absolute’ outweighed by to Rule 602's prejudicial effect. foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013).

At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard who should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter. . All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

11/05/2013 292:09 is not familiar Evidence do not with the prohibit a party document and has from questioning not seen it before. witnesses about See, 268:8-15. admissible Rules 401, 402, documents the – Testimony witness does not does not involve recall having seen filter at issue before. “Personal and/or failure knowledge of a fact mode at issue; ‘is not an absolute’ Irrelevant and any to Rule 602's probative value foundational outweighed by requirement . . . .”, prejudicial effect. United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013).

At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard whiwho should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter. . All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in the context of the entire filter-line Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

11/05/2013 is not familiar Peterson with the The Federal Rules of document and has Evidence do not not seen it before. prohibit a party See, 268:8-15. from questioning Rules 401, 402, witnesses about – Testimony admissible does not involve documents the filter at issue witness does not and/or failure recall having seen mode at issue; before. “Personal Irrelevant and any knowledge of a fact probative value ‘is not an absolute’ outweighed by to Rule 602's prejudicial effect. foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013).

At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard who should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter. . All G2 filter platform filters, including the Meridian trace their design history to the Recovery filter and the defects in the Meridian design only can be understood only in entire filter-line development. Judge Campbell agreed with this position in Jones v. Bard. [MDL Order No. 10819].

The failure modes are relevant to the assessment of the defects in the design of the filter whether a particular failure mode has occurred; however, Ms. Johnson has experienced perforation, migration, tilt, and fracture. The Bard's conduct with regard to the design history and complaint history of its IVC filters from the Recovery filter to the Meridian is relevant to the negligence claims as is its knowledge of how complications such as caudal migration can lead to fracture.

The testimony is relevant and is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 293:04- This violates the Admitted in SUSTAIN 11/05/2013 293:14 Court's Ruling on Peterson beginning Recovery Fracture, migration, with "And Migrataion perforation and did you…" deaths. Rule 401, death are risks 402, 403 . This involved in the use case does not of the Recovery Recovery Filter, relevant to whether nor does it involve the there is a design any allegation of defect. Fracture, migration death. migration, ECF 204 perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous. The reference to the word “death” will be redacted.

DEPONENT DEF PL DEF RESPONSE COURT COUNTER OBJECTIONS TO OBJECTIONS RULING Carr, Rob 88:07-88:08 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completeness "in fairness ought designation of lines to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

11/05/2013 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completeness "in fairness ought designation of lines to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 135:10- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 135:12 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 135:14 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completeness "in fairness ought designation of lines to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 192:12- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 192:16 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 192:18- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 192:22 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 193:11- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 193:15 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 193:17- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 193:20 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 265:18- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 11/05/2013 266:03 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought designation of lines Completeness to be considered of questioning in at the same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no personal knowledge. designation.

Carr, Rob 268:08- FRE 106 only This testimony is SUSTAINED.

11/05/2013 268:15 requires necessary to place Plaintiff’s For completeness that Plaintiff's selective affirmative Completeness "in fairness ought designation of lines testimony on to be considered of questioning in this point was at the same time". proper context struck.

Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this attempting to elicit testimony, in the testimony from a name of fairness, witness about a must be subject or document considered at the with which that same time as witness has no Plaintiff's personal knowledge. designation.

October 29, 2014, Deposition: DEPON- PL AFFIRM DEF PL RESPONSE COURT ENT OBJECTIONS TO OBJECTIONS RULING Carr, Rob Bard objects to 10/29/2014 Plaintiff’s references to “Admitted in the Peterson case” as a basis for allowing a designation to played, or overruling an objection, and submits that the testimony should be consider based on the facts and applicable law and rulings in this case.

The Peterson case involved a different filter, different claims, and was different state law.

Carr, Rob 74:24-75:06 Rule 602 - witness Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 is not familiar with Peterson the document.See, The Federal Rules lines 5-9 and 12 of Evidence do not prohibit a party from questioning witnesses about admissible documents the witness does not recall having seen before. “Personal knowledge of a fact ‘is not an absolute’ to Rule 602's foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id.at 459. Mr. Carr is Bard's former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management and should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter.

Carr, Rob 75:07-75:09 Testimony 10/29/2014 admitted at Bard's request in Peterson 10/29/2014 admitted at Bard's request in Peterson Carr, Rob 78:15-78:23 Rule 602 - witness Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 is not familiar with Peterson the document.See, Fracture, lines 75: 5-9 and migration, 12. perforation and death are risks involved in the use of the Recovery and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit a party from questioning witnesses about admissible documents the witness does not recall having seen before. “Personal knowledge of a fact ‘is not an absolute’ to Rule 602's requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459. Mr. Carr is Bard's former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management and should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter.

Carr, Rob 79:14-79:16 Rule 602 - witness Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 is not familiar with Peterson the document.See, Fracture, lines 75: 5-9 and migration, 12. perforation and death are risks involved in the use of the Recovery and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

The Federal Rules of Evidence do not prohibit a party from questioning witnesses about admissible documents the witness does not recall having seen before. “Personal knowledge of a fact ‘is not an absolute’ to Rule 602's foundational requirement . . . .”, United States v. Cuti, 702 F.3d. 453, 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). . “What if you had known “ questions are acceptable. Id., 459. Mr. Carr is Bard's former Director of Research and Development and current VP for Project Management and should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter.

10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. If and Meridian testimony is filters and are allowed, counters relevant to whether are necessary for the there is a completeness. design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

FRCP 32(6) AND FRE 106 only requires completeness that "in fairness ought to be considered at the same time".

Defendants have not demonstrated why this testimony, in the name of fairness, must be considered at the same time as Plaintiff's designation. include it in their cross.

Carr, Rob 82:13-82:18 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 83:02-83:03 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 83:05-83:06 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve The Federal Rules filter at issue and/or of Evidence do not failure modes at prohibit a party issue; Irrelevant and from questioning any probative value witnesses about outweighed by admissible prejudicial effect. documents the Rules 601/602 & witness does not 612. Lacks recall having seen foundation, witness before. “Personal does not have knowledge of a fact personal knowledge ‘is not an absolute’ of subject matter, to Rule 602's calls for speculation foundational by the witness. see requirement . . . .”, 85:20-85:21. The United States v. witness states that Cuti, 702 F.3d. he does not know 453, 459 (2nd Cir. the genesis of this 2013). . “What if document, so he you had known “ cannot speak questions are directly to it. acceptable. Id., 459 (2nd Cir. 2013). At all times relevant to the deposition and subject matter of the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard who should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are risks involved in the use of the Recovery and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect. migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 83:14-83:18 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so [he] failure to warn of can't speak directly the substantial risk to it. (83:14-15) of fracture, Obj. to designation migration and of an answer with death associated no question with the Meridian designated. rendered the Meridian dangerous.

Carr, Rob 83:21 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 83:23-83:24 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:02 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:04-84:08 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:11 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:13-84:14 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether foundation, witness the there is a does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:17 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve racture, migration, filter at issue and/or perforation and failure modes at death are risks issue; Irrelevant and involved in the use any probative value of the Recovery outweighed by and Meridian prejudicial effect. filters and are Rules 601/602 & relevant to whether 612. Lacks the there is a foundation, witness design defect. does not have Fracture, personal knowledge migration, of subject matter, perforation and calls for speculation death are also by the witness. see dangers of the 85:20-85:21. The Meridian filter that witness states that were known to he does not know Bard, and the the genesis of this failure to warn of document, so he the substantial risk cannot speak of fracture, directly to it. migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:19-84:20 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian Rules 601/602 & filters and are 612. Lacks relevant to whether does not have design defect. personal knowledge Fracture, of subject matter, migration, calls for speculation perforation and by the witness. see death are also 85:20-85:21. The dangers of the witness states that Meridian filter that he does not know were known to the genesis of this Bard, and the document, so he failure to warn of cannot speak the substantial risk directly to it. of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 84:22-85:01 Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve The Federal Rules filter at issue and/or of Evidence do not failure modes at prohibit a party issue; Irrelevant and from questioning any probative value witnesses about outweighed by admissible prejudicial effect. documents the Rules 601/602 & witness does not 612. Lacks recall having seen foundation, witness before. “Personal does not have knowledge of a fact personal knowledge ‘is not an absolute’ of subject matter, to Rule 602's calls for speculation foundational by the witness. see requirement . . . .”, 85:20-85:21. The United States v. witness states that Cuti, 702 F.3d. he does not know 453, 459 (2nd Cir. the genesis of this 2013). . “What if document, so he you had known “ cannot speak questions are directly to it. acceptable. Id., 459. At all times relevant to the deposition and the testimony Mr. Carr was an officer and manager at Bard who should be knowledgeable regarding the document and its subject matter.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are risks involved in the use of the Recovery and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous.

Carr, Rob 85:04 Admitted in 10/29/2014 Peterson Carr, Rob 132:11- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 132:17 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use prejudicial effect. and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous. The testimony is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 134:07- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 134:18 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous. The testimony is not unfairly prejudicial.

Carr, Rob 161:21- Rules 401, 402, Admitted in OVERRULED 10/29/2014 162:02 403. Testimony Peterson does not involve Fracture, filter at issue and/or migration, failure modes at perforation and issue; Irrelevant and death are risks any probative value involved in the use outweighed by of the Recovery prejudicial effect. and Meridian filters and are relevant to whether the there is a design defect.

Fracture, migration, perforation and death are also dangers of the Meridian filter that were known to Bard, and the failure to warn of the substantial risk of fracture, migration and death associated with the Meridian rendered the Meridian unreasonably dangerous. The testimony is not unfairly prejudicial.

ENT COUNTER TO OBJECTIONS RULING Carr, Rob 32:10-32:19 FRE 106 only This testimony is SUSTAIN 10/29/2014 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 60:08-60:14 FRE 106 only This testimony is SUSTAIN 10/29/2015 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective "in fairness ought to designation of lines be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 75:07-75:09 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 75:12 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 80:04-80:06 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 80:10-80:13 FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 134:19- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 135:03 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought to designation of lines Completenes be considered at the of questioning in s same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 135:08- FRE 106 only This testimony is OVERRULED 10/29/2014 135:12 requires necessary to place completeness that Plaintiff's selective For "in fairness ought to designation of lines Completenes be considered at the of questioning in s same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 164:13- FRE 106 only This testimony is SUSTAIN 10/29/2014 164:14 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in Subject to same time". proper context Objection Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal knowledge.

Carr, Rob 166:20- FRE 106 only This testimony is SUSTAIN 10/29/2014 166:24 requires necessary to place For completeness that Plaintiff's selective Completenes "in fairness ought to designation of lines s be considered at the of questioning in same time". proper context Defendants have and/or demonstrate not demostrated the Plaintiff is why this testimony, attempting to elicit in the name of testimony from a fairness, must be witness about a considered at the subject or same time as document with Plaintiff's which that witness designation. has no personal k nowledge.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ request for rulings on objections to certain designations is GRANTED, and the objections are sustained in part and overruled in part as provided above.

Entered this 4th day of June, 2021.

BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge