ORDER

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, District Judge.

Motion for summary judgment [2106] is granted. Summary judgment is granted in 137 cases listed in this order.

STATEMENT

Defendant Zimmer, Inc. has filed an omnibus motion (hereinafter "Zimmer Omnibus Motion") ([2106] in Master Docket, Case No. 11 C 5468) for summary judgment in more than 100 cases in this MDL proceeding. This order applies to 137 of those cases. Summary judgment should be granted in each of these cases, Zimmer argues, because Plaintiffs failed to timely submit expert reports, as required by Case Management Order No. 9 (hereinafter "CMO-9") ([1651] in Master Docket, Case No. 11 C 5468). At the time the court entered CMO-9, the admissible expert testimony Plaintiffs had offered in the MDL suggested that the allegedly defective design of Zimmer's NexGen Flex knee implants caused injury only for those patients who attained knee flexion, post-implant, equal to or greater than 120 degrees ("high flexion"). Thus, to ensure that MDL Plaintiffs had an adequate evidentiary basis for their claims, CMO-9 required Plaintiffs to submit medical documentation that they had attained high flexion after implantation. Cases in which Plaintiffs failed to timely submit such documentation would not be eligible for selection as a bellwether case in the MDL. (CMO-9 ¶ 5.) CMO-9 recognized, however, that some Plaintiffs who did not have medical documentation of high flexion may nevertheless maintain that the design of Zimmer's knee implant caused their injury. (Id. ¶ 6.) The order labeled those cases "Track Two" cases. (Id.) Because an expert opinion had not yet been offered to support a causation theory that did not involve attainment of high flexion, the order required Plaintiffs pursuing an alternative theory of causation to submit a Rule 26(a)(2) expert report in support of that theory by a specified deadline. (Id. ¶ 7.)

In its omnibus motion, Zimmer has produced evidence that Plaintiffs in the 137 cases at issue in this order have failed to submit expert reports in accordance with CMO-9. (Zimmer Omnibus Motion at 3, ¶ 7.) In addition, Zimmer has cited legal authority demonstrating that expert testimony is required under state law to sustain the claims in each of Plaintiffs' cases. (See Ex. A to Zimmer Omnibus Motion [2106-1].) In these 137 cases, Plaintiffs have not responded to Zimmer's motion. Because Plaintiffs have failed to address the legal arguments and factual assertions in Zimmer's motion and because that motion and its supporting materials establish that Zimmer is entitled to summary judgment, the court grants Zimmer's motion for summary judgment ([2106] in Master Docket, Case No. 11 C 5468) in the cases listed below. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(3).