Facts
- Named plaintiffs in consolidated mass-tort actions sued the manufacturer of implantable infusion pumps, Medtronic, Inc. (captioned as Medtronics, Inc.).
- The litigation concerned alleged malfunctions in two pump models: 8615 and 8611.
- Plaintiffs alleged their pumps stopped working when they were administered Demerol (meperidine) for pain control.
- Plaintiffs pursued class-action certification for a proposed nationwide class involving people whose implanted Medtronic pumps allegedly failed when Demerol was administered.
- To prepare their class-certification showing, plaintiffs served discovery seeking information about pump failures and related incidents on a nationwide basis.
- Medtronic objected that the discovery was overly broad and sought information about a class that could never be certified.
- Medtronic argued that any certifiable class would have to be limited to people sharing the named plaintiffs’ alleged characteristics—specifically, Louisiana residents implanted with a model 8615 or 8611 pump that failed when Demerol was administered and then had to be surgically removed.
- Plaintiffs moved to compel discovery consistent with their nationwide class theory.
Issues
- In a putative nationwide class action, may plaintiffs obtain pre-certification discovery directed to their proposed nationwide class definition, even if the defendant argues such a class cannot be certified?
- May a defendant restrict pre-certification class discovery by insisting discovery be limited to a narrower, defendant-defined class mirroring the named plaintiffs’ alleged characteristics?
- How should the court apply Rule 26’s relevance and burden limits when discovery is sought to develop the record for Rule 23 class-certification issues?
Decision
- The court ruled on plaintiffs’ motion to compel class-related discovery sought in support of proposed nationwide class certification.
- The court declined to confine discovery solely to the narrow Louisiana-only group proposed by Medtronic and permitted broader discovery aligned with plaintiffs’ nationwide class theory, subject to reasonable limits for burden.
Legal Principles
- Rule 26 permits discovery of nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the claims and defenses and proportional to the needs of the case.
- In putative class actions, pre-certification discovery may address Rule 23 questions, including the contours of the proposed class, common questions, and whether class treatment is workable.
- A defendant’s assertion that a proposed class is not certifiable does not automatically bar discovery aimed at testing (and proving or disproving) plaintiffs’ broader class definition.
- Trial courts have discretion to manage class-related discovery by ordering production while setting reasonable scope limits to address burden and proportionality.
Conclusion
In Borskey v. Medtronics, Inc., the court addressed a pre-certification discovery dispute in consolidated litigation over alleged failures of Medtronic infusion pumps when patients were administered Demerol, and it permitted broader class-related discovery consistent with plaintiffs’ proposed nationwide class rather than limiting discovery to Medtronic’s narrower, Louisiana-only view of any possible class.