Burks v. Abbott Labs., Civil No. 08-3414 (JRT/JSM)

• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
• Writing for the Court: JOHN R. TUNHEIM
• Docket Number: Civil No. 08-3414 (JRT/JSM)
• Parties: ROCKLAND BURKS and ADRIENNE LAWRENCE, individually and as parents and natural guardians of E.B., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and MEAD JOHNSON & CO., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 2011

ROCKLAND BURKS and ADRIENNE LAWRENCE, individually
and as parents and natural guardians of E.B., Plaintiffs,
v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES and MEAD JOHNSON & CO., Defendants.

Civil No. 08-3414 (JRT/JSM)

UNITED STATES District COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Dated: October 31, 2011

ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED JULY 8, 2011

Richard H. Taylor, TAYLOR MARTINO, Mobile,
AL 36601; W. Lloyd Copeland, TAYLOR MARTINO, PO Box 894
Mobile, AL 36601; Stephen C. Rathke and Kate G. Westad, LOMMEN,
ABDO, COLE, KING & STAGEBERG, PA,
Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Kara Hadican Samuels,
SANGISETTY & SAMUELS, LLC, New
Orleans, LA 70113, for plaintiffs.

June K. Ghezzi, Melissa B. Hirst, Kelly M. Marino, and Paula S. Quist,
JONES DAY, Suite 3500, Chicago, IL 60601;
Robert Bennett, Sara H. Daggett, and William J. Tipping, GASKINS,
BENNETT, BIRRELL, SCHUPP, LLP, Suite
2900, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant Abbott Laboratories.

Anthony J. Anscombe, David J. Grycz, Diana L. Geseking, and Karen E.
Woodward, SEDGWICK LLP, Suite 4200,
Chicago, IL 60606; Brian W. Thomson, Jonathon T. Naples, and Frederick
W. Morris, LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD, PA,
Suite 2300, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant Mead Johnson &
Co.

Page 2

Rockland Burks and Adrienne Lawrence (collectively, "the Burks") brought this action against defendants Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott") and Mead Johnson & Company ("Mead"), alleging products liability claims relating to their daughter's consumption of powdered infant formula ("PIF"). On April 20, 2010, this Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss the Burks' Fourth Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 130.) The Burks' remaining claims are premised on an inadequate warning claim under the Louisiana Product Liability Act ("LPLA"). On July 8, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron issued an order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to compel Abbott's disclosure or discovery. (Docket No. 209.) Before the Court are Abbott's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court affirms the Order.

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2006, the Burks' daughter, Evan, was born in Louisiana. (Fourth Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 6, Docket No. 111.) Evan was born full term, and for the first 28 days of her life had a normal immune system for her age. (Id. ¶ 7.) In June 2006, prior to Evan's birth, Abbott sent unsolicited mailings including packets of PIFs to the Burks at their home address in Louisiana. (Id. ¶ 8.) On or around June 26, 2006, the Burks purchased two cans of PIF manufactured by Mead. (Id. ¶ 9.) On June 26, 2006, the Burks began feeding Evan the PIFs. (Id. ¶ 10.) On July 2, 2006, after showing signs of illness, Evan was admitted to the hospital and diagnosed with neonatal Enterobacter sakazakii ("E. sak") meningitis, which caused her to suffer severe brain damage. (Id.

Page 3

¶ 12.) The Burks claim that the bacteria that caused Evan's illness originated from "the bacteria colony or its progeny" that contaminated Abbott's and Mead's PIF facilities, finished product PIF prior to distribution, and/or cans of PIF. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.)

The Burks have filed a total of five Complaints. In response to each complaint, defendants moved to dismiss. In response to the motions to dismiss the FAC, this Court, in an April 20, 2010 Order, concluded that the Burks had pled a plausible claim for inadequate warning under the LPLA but dismissed with prejudice the Burks' allegations that were not based on inadequate warning claims. (Docket No. 130.)

On June 16, 2010, the Burks served written discovery on the defendants. Abbott did not deliver the majority of its documents to the Burks until November 12, 2010. After a series of correspondence between the parties attempting to resolve the discovery disputes, the Burks notified Abbott of their intention to seek a notice to compel and finally sought a motion to compel. The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the Magistrate Judge. (Docket No. 172.) Abbott objects to portions of that order.

ANALYSIS

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review for an appeal of a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive issue is extremely deferential. Reko v. Creative...