Judge in Essure Mass Tort Poised to Unlock Confidential Documents
"Justice will be done in public, putting a limit on how corporate America thinks it can operate in secret without accountability," said Lori Andrus, of Andrus Anderson in San Francisco.
November 13, 2019 at 05:27 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Nearly a dozen documents outlining Bayer's dealings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in litigation over discontinued birth control device Essure will no longer be confidential.
In a tentative ruling, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith partially lifted a blanket protective order covering most of the roughly 70 million pages of discovery documents in the case. If the order holds, 16 court documents and part of a deposition will be available to the public. Plaintiffs counsel allege that Essure's previous parent company, Conceptus, intentionally hid records revealing the negative side effects of the product.
"Where the subject matter of a protective order concerns health or safety matters, the court will also consider the public interest in access to the information," Smith wrote. "Matters of public safety are of public interest because judicial proceedings may bring issues to light that deserve legislative or regulatory attention."
As of December 2018, the FDA received 32,773 medical device reports related to Essure, a permanent implant inserted into the fallopian tubes. Side effects have included hair and tooth loss, chronic bleeding, miscarriages, and death of both Essure recipients and their infants. Bayer took the product off the market in July 2018.
The unsealed documents include reports prepared after FDA inspections and annual reports submitted to the agency, as well as internal documents outlining the company's standard operating procedures around product return, complaint handling and reporting.
Many of the documents are more than a decade old. FDA confidentiality on trade secrets and commercial and financial information expires after 10 years.
"If a [Freedom of Information Act] request would result in an unredacted public document, then the protective order will permit public disclosure of an unredacted document," Smith wrote. "Additionally, the 10-year limit on confidentiality designations for trade secrets and commercial or financial information is consistent with California and federal case law on protective orders generally."
Bayer counsel Chris Cotton, of Shook Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri, took issue specifically with removing the confidentiality designation on the internal documents from Conceptus prior to Bayer's purchase of the company in 2013. That includes Corrective and Preventive Action documents and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) reports.
"SOPs by definition speak to how the company operates," Cotton said in a motion hearing Wednesday, asking for an order without prejudice to revisit this issue. "That has value even when we talk about older documents."
Plaintiffs attorney Lori Andrus, of Andrus Anderson in San Francisco, argued that Bayer had been unable to show good cause for maintaining the secrecy of the documents.
Smith said she would take the lawyers' guidance under advisory. "I'm not sure you can foreclose a party for raising an issue with the court," she said. "But the tentative order was pretty clear."
In an interview after the hearing, Andrus said the ruling is significant, because Bayer had now been treating proceedings like they're in private arbitration, even though they're in a public court, she said.
"Justice will be done in public, putting a limit on how corporate America thinks it can operate in secret without accountability," she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWith DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
7 minute readMoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
Amid the Tragedy of the L.A. Fires, a Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Day Pitney Announces Partner Elevations
- 2The New Rules of AI: Part 2—Designing and Implementing Governance Programs
- 3Plaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
- 4As Litigation Finance Industry Matures, Links With Insurance Tighten
- 5The Gold Standard: Remembering Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250