Jewell v. I-Flow

Jewell v. I-Flow

The plaintiff met the threshold for relevance based on the expert report; applying the Laushway factors and CPR 4.12 the court exercised its discretion to order production but limited scope to the specific On-Q fixed flow pump insert identified in defendant's material (pages 86–89) and to four combinations involving labeled 270 mL fill volumes and/or 5 mL/hour flow rates, with a temporal window from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2015, because the defendant failed to demonstrate disproportionality or legal barriers and no evidence was provided to support narrower temporal or model limits or to establish privacy/statutory restrictions.

Citation
2017 NSSC 54
Parties
Plaintiffs: Anne L. Jewell and Thurman M. Jewell (Parents of Leia Bettina Jewell, on behalf of the Estate of Leia Bettina Jewell); Defendant: I-Flow, LLC; Defendant: Pictou County Health Authority; Defendant: Dr. Maximillian Christian Lincoln
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Product Liability (defective Medical Device) / Pre Trial Disclosure Motion (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application granted in part; disclosure ordered with specified product and temporal limitations; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Discoverability, Proportionality, Production Order, Expert Report, Costs
Source Language
English
Product Liability Civil Procedure Evidence Privacy Law Disclosure Discoverability Proportionality Production Order +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne L. Jewell and Thurman M. Jewell (Parents of Leia Bettina Jewell, on behalf of the Estate of Leia Bettina Jewell)

Plaintiffs

I-Flow, LLC

Defendant

Pictou County Health Authority

Defendant

Dr. Maximillian Christian Lincoln

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Product Liability (defective Medical Device) / Pre Trial Disclosure Motion (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff demonstrated sufficient relevance to compel production of complaints to I-Flow, FDA and Health Canada and I-Flow investigation files
  2. 2 Whether the disclosure request is overly broad or disproportional and how scope should be limited
  3. 3 Whether privacy or statutory restrictions prevent disclosure and how to balance privacy/public interest against the search for truth

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff met the threshold for relevance based on the expert report; applying the Laushway factors and CPR 4.12 the court exercised its discretion to order production but limited scope to the specific On-Q fixed flow pump insert identified in defendant's material (pages 86–89) and to four combinations involving labeled 270 mL fill volumes and/or 5 mL/hour flow rates, with a temporal window from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2015, because the defendant failed to demonstrate disproportionality or legal barriers and no evidence was provided to support narrower temporal or model limits or to establish privacy/statutory restrictions.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; disclosure ordered with specified product and temporal limitations; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Defendant I-Flow to produce complaints relating to the On-Q fixed flow pump insert identified at pages 86–89 of Tab A of Ms. Archibald's affidavit and I-Flow's files relating to those complaints
  • Production limited to the four combinations that include either labelled fill volumes of 270 millilitres and/or labelled flow rates of 5 millilitres per hour