Lopez v. Zoll Services, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 21-22433-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA FLOR MORERA LOPEZ, and ASBERT ANAZCO, individually and as personal representatives of the Estate of Asbert E. Anazco, Plaintiffs, Vs. ZOLL SERVICES, LLC, ZOLL MEDICAL CORP., and ZOLL MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendants, □□

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS TO WHICH DEFENDANTS OPPOSE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL During the trial in the above-captioned case, Defendants have objected to the admission of several of Plaintiffs’ exhibits. After reviewing the objections submitted by Defendants (ECF No. 298), Plaintiffs’ Notice of Authority Regarding Evidentiary Matters (ECF No. 300), and after considering the evidence put forth thus far at trial, the Court rules as follows on the admissibility of Plaintiffs’ exhibits:

Pifs’ | Description = | Ruling

2 Packing list, Quick Guide, patient Excluded. No evidence that these documents letters, marketing inserts, and return were relied on by Plaintiffs. instructions 3 Patient Checklist insert Excluded. No evidence that this document was relied on by Plaintiffs.

Photographs of LifeVest and inserts; Admitted in part. Sufficient evidence in the Patient Checklist (already in evidence | record exists to authenticate photographs. as Ex. 53-2 Duplicative Patient Checklist excluded. 21 January 2016 Quality System Report | Excluded. See Order on Motion in Limine and (CQC) Order on Prior Incidents. (ECF Nos. 248 & 268). 33 LifeVest Support Training: Admitted. Under Rule of the Federal Introduction to Flags and Identifying | Rules of Evidence, evidence is properly Flag Priority Levels authenticated if there is “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Rule 901 (a) requires only “sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be.” United States v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1002 (11th Cir. 1985). Courts in this Circuit have deemed documents produced during discovery to be authentic when those documents are offered into evidence by the opposing party. See Fox v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LLC, No. 17-CV-24284, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107045, at *21 (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2022) (finding defendant’s authentication challenge to exhibits it produced during discovery to be “disingenuous”); Wilmington Tr., N.A. v. Estate of Gonzalez, No. 15-cv- 23370, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197985, at *28 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016) (‘While authentication may be accomplished by means of a witness with knowledge, courts also have admitted documents produced during discovery as authentic when offered by the party opponent.” citation omitted)). Marketing pamphlet Excluded. Plaintiffs have not introduced any evidence that they saw the marketing materials. See ECF No. 248 { 5). Detection Algorithm document is relevant to this case. a report See ECF No. 248 { 3). 61 2021 Quality System Report (CQC) Excluded. See Order on Motion in Limine and Order on Prior Incidents. (ECF Nos. 248 & 268). Se So admissibility of Exhibit No. 33 above.

admissibility of Exhibit No. 33 above. □ Hospital Wearable Defibrillator evidence that they saw the marketing materials. Receives Premarket Approval from (See ECF No. 248 4 5). FDA” admissibility of Exhibit No. 33 above. See ECF No. 248 4 3). 108 | Procedure for correction action plans | Excluded. Plaintiff has not shown how this pees [bese non-conformance requires corrective action document is relevant to this case. 129 | 2020 Quality System Report (CQC) Excluded. See Order on Motion in Limine and annem Teron, 28 268).

With regards to Plaintiffs’ exhibits numbers 2, 3, 44, 52, 55, 86, 108, 100, the Court may reconsider its ruling on the admissibility of these exhibits if Plaintiffs can establish their relevance during the remainder of their case-in-chief. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this f day of February, 2023. oa Th UNI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies provided to: All Counsel of Record