No Deposition for Bard President over Memo on IVC Filter Study

Jim C. Beasley Group President
Jim C. Beasley
Group President

US District Judge David G. Campbell ruled that plaintiffs in the Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation cannot depose a top company executive about a 2010 memo he wrote to six Bard executives about a filter study.

However, the plaintiffs are free to try again later.

The executive, Jim Beasley, is a group president of C.R. Bard Inc. and was president of Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. from 2007 to 2012. At the time Beasley was responsible for hundreds of Bard products.

The plaintiffs want to question him about the mystery memo, but the judge said “no” on August 29.  There Are 810 cases pending in MDL 2641, Case No. 15-md-2641 (Click to see sample long form complaints).

“The Court concludes that Beasley ‘is clearly a high-level executive,’ and that the apex doctrine therefore applies,” the judge held.  Klungvedt v. Unum Grp., Case No. 2:12-CV-00651-JWS, (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2013). “The relevant questions, then, are ‘whether the executive has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.’”

The exhibits provided by Plaintiffs:

  • Suggest that someone named Mark was going to talk to Beasley about a filter study.
  • Confirm that Beasley was the author of a management memo written in 2010.
  • Beasley addressed the memo to Tim Ring and copied to at least five others.
  • It contained speculation by Daniel Orms about what Beasley might have known or done in connections with the memo.

However, the materials did not show that Beasley has unique, first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in this case, nor that Plaintiffs have exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods to obtain relevant information.

“The Court therefore concludes that Beasley should not be deposed at this time. If Plaintiffs conclude that they can make the required showing at a later point during the discovery period, they may raise this issue again with the Court.”


Share this Post: