McCoy v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 3:22-cv-02075

Background

Barbara McCoy underwent left hip replacement in 2008 using the DePuy Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal (MoM) device; she experienced problems soon after and required revision surgeries in 2009 and 2016.
McCoy alleges the device was defectively designed and that DePuy (and related Johnson & Johnson entities) failed to adequately warn her and her physicians of the risks related to MoM implants.
The case was initially part of an MDL in the Northern District of Texas, with extensive pretrial activity there, including Daubert motions and case management orders.
Upon transfer to the Southern District of California, the court addressed the timeliness of dispositive motions, the re-briefing of Daubert motions under Ninth Circuit law, and choice-of-law issues.
Plaintiff dropped claims for manufacturing defect, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability design defect, focusing mainly on failure-to-warn and negligence claims.
The court simultaneously addressed summary judgment (largely denied as untimely except for abandoned claims) and Daubert challenges to both parties’ expert witnesses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Summary Judgment Motion	Timely response not addressed; focuses on merits.	No extension needed; thought schedule allowed for late motion.	Motion denied as untimely and for lack of good cause.
Statute of Limitations	Discovery rule applies; genuine dispute about when McCoy became aware of possible wrongdoing.	McCoy knew or should have known of product issue well before filing.	Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; plaintiff's claim survives.
Failure-to-Warn Causation	Stronger warning could have altered prescribing physician's conduct; physician relied on community knowledge and sometimes manufacturer info.	No causation—physician did not rely on DePuy materials, so warning wouldn't have mattered.	Sufficient evidence for jury; summary judgment denied on this ground.
Daubert Challenges: Dr. Burstein/Drumwright	Experts’ opinions are grounded in experience and are relevant and reliable.	Experts unqualified or speculative; Ninth Circuit law should exclude some testimony.	Motions to exclude denied; MDL rulings persuasive.
Daubert Challenges: Dr. Naide	Qualified orthopedic surgeon; opinions on systemic risk, warnings, and causation are reliable.	Lacks basis for some opinions; parrots others; not all relevant to this case.	Opinions on systemic risk and warnings allowed; some opinions excluded if merely adopted from others.
Daubert Challenges: Mari Truman	Qualified biomedical engineer; independently reviewed evidence; opinions are her own.	Parrots prior expert; not a doctor; unqualified for medical causation and warning causation.	Most opinions allowed except for warning causation, causation of medical decisions, and specific training materials not reviewed.
Daubert Challenges: Dr. Kessler	Regulatory and standard-of-care expertise relevant to case; can opine on warnings, ethics, and regulatory obligations.	Should not testify legal conclusions; lacks expertise in some medical issues; ethical opinions irrelevant.	Can testify to industry/regulatory standards; can't make legal conclusions about warning adequacy under state law; opinions about necessity of monitoring and ethical standards allowed.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (standard for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (defines genuine dispute of material fact)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (admissibility of expert testimony)
Carlin v. Super. Ct., 920 P.2d 1347 (failure-to-warn standard under California law)
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914 (discovery rule for statute of limitations in products cases)
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 810 P.2d 549 (factors for warning adequacy)
Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (expert testimony on industry standards versus legal conclusions)