Update on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery – April 16, 2014
Update on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery – April 16, 2014:
Hi, I’m Stuart Talley with Kershaw|Talley. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for providing a status update on the Stryker Rejuvenate and Stryker ABG II litigation case. The Court ordered that the defendant Stryker provide discovery to plaintiffs in the form of thousands of pages of documents. We anticipate these documents will show whether or not Stryker had prior knowledge of the metallosis problems their hip devices would cause. Stryker has resisted our attempts to take discovery and obtain corporate documents which pertain to their conduct. After they resisted, we filed a motion to compel. A motion to compel asks the Court to force the defendant to produce those documents. One such series of documents is a custodial file from a corporate witness who is knowledgeable about a particular issue in the litigation. For instance, the file could be from an engineer who worked on creating or inventing the Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip implant devices.
Currently, we are seeking custodial files from 26 key witnesses. Stryker requested a schedule to delay these documents until the end of the year but the Plaintiffs Executive Committee filed a motion to receive the documents sooner to speed up discovery in the case so our clients would not have to wait so long for resolution. After we receive the custodial files, we will take the depositions of the corporate witnesses who are knowledgeable about specific issues of liability. A deposition refers to a party questioning another parties witness under oath. The Stryker custodial files are essential for deposition of the witnesses.
Furthermore, some documents we requested are in French. Stryker produced several of their defective hips in France via a subsidiary. We asked that the judge order Stryker to produce these French documents immediately so those documents can be translated and transcribed for trial. Additionally, we requested electronic versions of all printed documents. This is necessary because it enables us to have a native file format. A native file format is an electronic document which consists of the meta-data. Electronic meta-data tells us who created the documents, who worked on the documents, and how the documents were produced. The judge ordered Stryker to produce the native file formats.
Stryker has produced about a million pages of documents thus far but we believe there are many more to analyze. This discovery process is now making real progress, and we are pleased to finally be moving forward and making real progress in the case.
As always, if you desire more details concerning the status conference, you may visit the video library at our Stryker Litigation Update site, www.defectivehipsettlementcenter.com. To see the videos, click on the Stryker Litigation Update tab at the top of the page. Please feel free to call us with any questions or concerns.
TAGS: STRYKER HIP RECALL ATTORNEY, STRYKER HIP RECALL LAWYER, STRYKER HIP RECALL LAW FIRM, STRYKER HIP RECALL, STRYKER HIP RECALL LITIGATION, STRYKER HIP RECALL LAWSUIT