United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
BARBARA M. ATKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
ETHICON, INC., Defendant.
before the Court are two motions: a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 16) and a Motion to Strike the Late Report and
Opinions of Dr. William Porter (“Dr. Porter”) or
Alternatively to Extend Deadlines (Doc. 25), both filed by
Defendant Ethicon, Inc.
reasons below, both motions will be granted.
Plaintiffs' claims stem from the implantation of Gyencare
Transvaginal Tape, a product made and sold by Defendant,
which allegedly caused Plaintiff Barbara Atkinson to suffer
severe injuries and caused her husband, Plaintiff Roy
Atkinson, to suffer loss of consortium. (Complaint, Doc. 1.)
removed this action to this Court on May 20, 2013. (Doc. 1.)
Shortly thereafter, on June 19, 2013, the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(“JPML”) transferred this case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. (Doc. 5.)
April 26, 2019, after the completion of pretrial proceedings,
the JPML remanded this action to the undersigned. On May 8,
2019, the Court issued an order providing, in relevant part,
that “[g]oing forward, the Court will require
compliance with the Local Rules of Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania as well as the undersigned's
Practices and Procedures.” (Doc. 10.)
Court held a telephonic conference on May 13, 2019 (Doc. 15),
at which the parties apprised the Court of the status of this
case and their positions concerning discovery. At the
conference, the Court affirmed that discovery in this case
had been closed for nearly seven months and ordered that
discovery would not be reopened. Following the conference,
the Court issued a Case Management Order (Doc. 19), which
provided that “[d]iscovery in this matter is
closed.” (Id. at ¶ 1.) Additionally, to
ensure that all documents relevant to the parties'
dispute would be filed on the docket of this Court in the
form required by the Local Rules and the undersigned's
Practices and Procedures, the Court ordered the parties to
“refile their respective motions and relevant documents
on the docket for this Court” in accordance with those
procedures. (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.) Documents
that were not filed on the docket for this Court, or that
were filed contrary to the manner prescribed by the Local
Rules, are not part of the summary judgment record that the
Court will consider.
the Court's intention to manage these proceedings through
its orders-orders which, to repeat, required compliance with
the Local Rules and the undersigned's Practices and
Procedures, and affirmed that discovery was closed-the
parties have not complied with those orders or have simply
ignored them. The Court's task has grown more complex
because, as described below, so many of the parties'
filings contain information that the Court will not consider.
filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on May 14, 2019.
Defendant's motion does not comply with the Local Rules
as Defendant did not file a concise statement of material
facts or an appendix of supporting documents. LCvR 56.B.1,
moved for an extension of time to respond on the ground that
they wished to prepare an expert report. (Doc. 20.) As
discovery in this matter had been closed, the Court promptly
and summarily denied that request. (Doc. 21.)
by the Court's prior orders, Plaintiffs filed a Response
to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22),
with a supporting brief (Doc. 23) that includes the newly
prepared expert report and argues that such a report renders
Defendant's motion moot. Like Defendant's motion,
Plaintiffs' response does not comply with the Local
Rules, as Plaintiff has not filed a responsive concise
statement of material facts or an appendix of
documents. LCvR 56.C.1, 56.C.1.3.
then filed a motion to strike the expert report (Doc. 25) on
June 20, 2019, and the Court set a deadline of July 1, 2019
for Plaintiff's response, if any, to that motion, (Doc.
27). As of today, Plaintiff has not ...