reference omitted); Order, Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00195 (S.D.W.Va. July 1, 2013), [Docket 309], at 3-4 (“Under United States Supreme Court precedent, the FDA 510(k) process does not go to whether the product is safe and effective.... Because the FDA 510(k) process does not go to whether the [mesh] products are safe and effective and the 510(k) process does not impose any requirements on its own, the 510(k) process is inapplicable to this case. This evidence is excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 as irrelevant, and under Rule 403 for the reasons previously stated, including the very substantial dangers of misleading the jury and confusing the issues.”); Mem. Op. & Order, Cisson v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00195 (S.D.W.Va. June 27, 2013) [Docket 302], at 3-4 (<HOLDING>); Mem. Op. & Order, Huskey v. Ethicon, Inc.,
holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion under rule 403 by allowing evidence that provided background for the crime charged holding that evidence regarding the 510k process and enforcement should be excluded under rule 403 holding that any relevant mitigating evidence concerning a defendants character should not be excluded holding that evidence necessary to the governments rebuttal of a defendants case could not be excluded under rule 403 but could have been if it was introduced only to bolster the prosecutions case holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403