In the Ethicon transvaginal mesh multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia deposition scheduling process is the topic of one of the most recent pretrial orders filed this month in the case. According to the defendants, Ethicon, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary responsible for the development of the Gynecare Prolift transvaginal mesh product, the deposition process must be more efficient.
The defendants argued in pretrial order 55 that the plaintiffs are ordering the deposition of some individuals twice. As such, the defendants claimed that the lengthy deposition process will significantly impact their their business proceedings.
They requested that individuals who have were asked to provide testimony as both a corporate representative and as a fact witness be scheduled in back-to-back meetings, as the current schedule calls for some of these individuals for provide depositions days or weeks apart. As a result, Ethicon asked for a protective order.
As detailed in the pretrial order, the plaintiffs pointed to a deposition process agreement, which states that back-to-back scheduling of witnesses is not necessary. Furthermore, the plaintiffs made an argument against back-to-back scheduling of corporate executives who are also being deposed as fact witnesses due to the importance of evaluating their testimony from one deposition before moving on to the next. Also, plaintiffs made a case against back-to-back depositions, as they saw this as influencing the possibility of the court combining two different depositions from the same individual into a singular testimony.
Ultimately, U.S. Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert ruled against the defendants’ protective order request on the grounds that the defendants did not adequately demonstrate the need for such an order.
The plaintiffs in the Ethicon MDL have filed their transvaginal mesh injury claims citing that Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon’s transvaginal mesh products caused serious injury, and that the medical device manufacturer failed to warn patients and health care providers about the health risks associated with the use of their surgical mesh products. There are currently 8,553 transvaginal mesh lawsuits in the Ethicon MDL in West Virginia.
Women who have received an implant of transvaginal mesh to treat either pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI) cite the following as transvaginal mesh injuries: mesh erosion, mesh contraction, organ damage, infection, bleeding, severe pelvic area pain, and painful intercourse. In order to remove the defective transvaginal mesh, individuals have often undergone numerous surgical operations, sometimes with little success.
Carey Danis & Lowe transvaginal mesh lawyers are pleased to see the court rule in favor of collecting depositions in an efficient manner. As a transvaginal mesh law firm representing individuals who claim to have been injured by transvaginal mesh products, Carey Danis & Lowe strongly believes in an efficient legal process that supplies plaintiffs with their day in court.
If you or someone you love has been injured by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon’s Gynecare Prolift, or another transvaginal mesh product, contact a transvaginal mesh lawyer at Carey Danis & Lowe. Call 800.721.2519 or submit a personal injury claim form.References: Defective Medical Device litigation, Transvaginal Mesh