ORDER

CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.

Plaintiffs Linda and Jeff Naon allege that they suffered injuries that were proximately caused by defects in Defendant Mentor Worldwide LLC's suburethral sling product, ObTape Transobturator Tape. The Naons also assert that they suffered injuries because Mentor did not adequately warn Mrs. Naon's physicians about the risks associated with ObTape. Mentor seeks summary judgment because the Naons did not disclose a specific causation expert to opine that the Naons' injuries were caused by defects in ObTape or a failure to warn. See Lewis Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 41-3 in 4:13-cv-337 ("Plaintiffs did not produce a case-specific expert report in this case.").

Once Mentor showed that the Naons could not produce admissible evidence to establish specific causation, the Naons had the burden to point to some evidence to create a genuine fact dispute on specific causation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) ("A party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record[.]"). The Naons did not respond to Mentor's summary judgment motion. Thus, they did not point to any evidence to establish specific causation. Without such evidence, all of the Naons' claims fail. See Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings, 198 P.3d 493, 503 (2008) ("[U]nder traditional product liability theory, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable connection between the injury, the product causing the injury, and the manufacturer of that product." (alteration in original) (quoting Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc., 744 P.2d 605, 612 (1987)); Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 816-17 (Minn. 2000) (affirming summary judgment in favor of an insecticide manufacturer on the plaintiffs' personal injury claims because the plaintiffs did not present admissible evidence to establish that the insecticide caused the plaintiffs' injuries).1 Mentor's summary judgment motion (ECF No. 41 in 4:13-cv-337) is therefore granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.