Update about Boston Scientific
For all you ladies who do not see this on Facebook today and have asked how has Boston Scientific got away with the resin laundering, I am giving you what one lawyer is trying to do. He has posted his emails about the problems with the mesh used by Boston Scientific. I wanted every injured woman to see this for themselves and draw their own conclusion. This is terrible and I too cannot imagine how they can get away with it.
Houston attorney Steve Mostyn on Friday Jan 15th, 2016 released emails he sent to Eva
Weiler, an attorney for Boston Scientific Corp. In them, Mostyn says he alerted her that
material the company used to make vaginal mesh implants was counterfeit and
defective. Some personal information has been redacted.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Steve Mostyn < email@example.com >
Date: January 14, 2016 at 11:03:54 PM EST
To: Weiler, Eva (SHB), TVMLit , Aimee Wagstaff, Craig Eiland, JPerduejr, Clayton Clark
Cc: Mark C. Sparks, WOhlemeyer, Strongman, Jon (SHB), Caroline L. Maida
Subject: Re: Stevens–Notice of Preliminary Injunction Request and Certificates of
Ok we will do it the hard way. Surprised that a request to meet and discuss these
matters was rejected along with continued implantation of the horrible product.
On Jan 14, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Steve Mostyn < firstname.lastname@example.org > wrote:
Eva , your Chinese mesh has selenium in it, all samples tested at the Cambridge lab are
counterfeit it is clear by the molecular weight and many other indicators that it is not
Marlex there are high levels of selenium in all three samples. Marlex did NOT use
selenium, Chevron used Irganox, it is phenolic antioxidant, aka oxygen scavenger, This
product would be extremely hard to get in China and more expensive. The amount of
Selenium present in the 3 counterfeit samples tested in Cambridge is 10 times, the
amount accepted in Europe for general plastics. Like a plastic chair. The Selenium will
react with hydrogen peroxide caused by the inflammation process which is well
established. This reaction will cause Selenic acid which will eat the plastic and the tissue
surrounding it, this process will be on going as the selenium is in embedded in the resin
and as the acid is made ; the body will make more hydrogen peroxide to fight the tissue
destruction. Your client new this from the Cambridge studies. I tell you all of this
because the evidence is a sure as DNA, the team I have working this are physicist and
chemist who are scientists at their university. They have never worked as an expert and
they are certain, we asked two separate teams the same questions and independently
they came to the same conclusion. In addition the counterfeiters added titanium to
sample 2 to attempt to get longer polymers, it’s an old chemists trick done in labs done
to make a better reaction, but is then left as a residual. The Titanium catalyst is left in
and acts an an additional oxidative site for degradation. We must do what is best to
contain this harm. Boston Scientific is over. I also have evidence you smuggled in
balloons used in heart procedures and got caught in China. I am at the four season in
New York if I do not have an agreement by 11 est to meet me tomorrow in New York to
discuss removing this horrific product I will release this email and all emails I have sent
to you regarding this to the media at 9:00 am. What’s the harm you might learn
Btw by the time your read this I have already sent it to the DOJ and the California
Attorney General office. It’s not about the money it’s about stopping this. As I wrote
you before I hope I am wrong but I am unfortunately certain I am not.
On Jan 14, 2016, at 7:59 PM, Steve Mostyn < email@example.com > wrote:
Eva I have spoke with the attorneys in the Mdl and apparently George W. Vialle depo
was never concluded, in fact, there were objection to its use because it was partial at
trial therefore we would like to finish this depo in the Mdl in the next week please
provide us with dates.
Also I read Mr Charles Smith depo and the following sworn testimony struck me in direct
contradiction to his lengthy emails about smuggling this resin out of China.
Mr. Charles Smith depo.
23 A. I guess that’s what he’s stating here.
24 Q. Where did you go next to find — to procure
1 more resin, if you’re aware?
2 A. I don’t know. That’s what supply chain does.
3 It just appears that they said they were going to look
4 everywhere, whatever that means.
On Jan 14, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Steve Mostyn < firstname.lastname@example.org > wrote:
Eva the more I think of your last statement the more the level of your bad faith is rather
amazing. Wrongfully mark every page confidential and then claim despite our use in all
other matters we can’t use in Ms Steven case this is solved rather simply by remove
the improper claim of confidentiality. I look forward to your response by 5est. I
understand you want to keep these documents secret but trade secret has a specific
legal meaning so we expect you to address that on all document and however
specifically and immediately the ones we have referenced in our filings in the Stevens
On Jan 14, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Weiler, Eva (SHB) wrote:
Mark: The following responds to Ms. Maida’s email of 1/13/16, which appears to
summarize your requests:
· Confidentiality: As indicated in multiple instances, we believe we have and will
continue to follow the parameters of the protective order; and, as we have done before,
we will consider specific documents or groups of documents that you would like to be
downgraded. We have downgraded documents for other counsel, and have resolved
these issues in other instances throughout 6+ years of litigation in multiple coordinated
proceedings with very limited court intervention. We will not agree to re-review 9
million+ pages of production.
· Privilege : No one has provided us with specifics regarding the alleged insufficiencies
of our privilege logs. Please provide the same. We also have some documents whose
redactions have been removed and we will upload these to your FTP site, in addition to
some of the native versions of photos you requested from the production.
· Objections to Discovery : Boston Scientific will not agree to remove all of its
objections to discovery requests served in the MDL. Custodians for collection were
identified through negotiations with plaintiffs’ counsel in the MDL. Boston Scientific
performed interviews of custodians to identify potential sources of documents related
to the mesh product line. Collections were generally made from email, computers,
shared drives, and physical documents. The documents were processed according to
the specifications in the MDL ESI protocol and filtered using negotiated search terms.
After processing, documents were reviewed for content related to BSC’s mesh
products. Documents that related to mesh products were produced according to the
ESI protocol. The agreed upon and negotiated search terms are attached.
· Custodians : Numerous custodians have been produced for deposition in the MDL,
of which you are a part. We will send you (or upload to your FTP site) these
depositions. All are subject to the MDL protective order. Demanding additional
depositions of previously deposed individuals is unnecessary, burdensome, and
harassing. And we do not believe new custodians are necessary given the status of
discovery. Please provide a good faith basis for why you are requesting the depositions
of Mr. Moreci, Mr. Tobin, Ms. Charest, and Mr. Nicholas.
· ProteGen Log : We do not have an Excel version.
· Finally, Boston Scientific does not agree and objects to your use of confidential
documents from the MDL in the Stevens action, as this violates the protective order.
To read the last blog I wrote about this, here is that link