Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

LINDA REEVES

v.

WYETH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:05CV00163

PLAINTIFF

 

 DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending are the parties’ numerous motions in limine. Based on the findings of fact and

conclusions of law, as well as statements of counsel, made at the hearing held on July 21, 2006, I

rule as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 To Preclude Argument Regarding the

Preamble and Any Statement By the FDA Regarding Preemption (Doc. No. 180) is GRANTED

based on an agreement between the parties.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 6 To Exclude Argument or References to 

Plaintiff’s Diagnosis with Human Papilloma Virus (Doc. No. 183) is GRANTED because the

prejudice outweighs the probative value.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 7 to Preclude Wyeth Employees and Former 

Employee Witnesses From Offering Opinion Testimony Which They are Unqualified to Offer,

Which Has Not Previously Been Disclosed, and Which Lacks Appropriate Support Under

Daubert (Doc. No. 185) is DENIED. If there is an attempt by these witnesses to present expert

testimony at trial, Judge Wilson can address the issue then.

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 6
2

4. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 8 to Preclude Wyeth’s Counsel and Its Experts 

From Speculating on Other Causes of Breast Cancer that Have No Reliable Scientific Support

(Doc. No. 187) is DENIED. However, the parties should attempt to agree on a limiting

instruction describing known risk factors and biological plausibility. 

5. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 9 to Preclude Wyeth From Introducing 

Evidence or Testimony Based on New WHI Data or Further Analysis of Such Data (Doc. No.

188) is DENIED. If any issues arise at trial, Judge Wilson can address them.

6. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine Nos. 13 through 38 (Doc. No. 194) is GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART:

a. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 13 -- "Lawyer-made" Lawsuits --

GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Defendant may refer to

information received by Plaintiff at a particular time but can not indicate

that it came from a lawyer advertisement.

b. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 14(b)-(e)-- Painting Plaintiff’s Lawyers

in a Negative Light -- GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. 

Defendant may refer to information received by Plaintiff at a particular

time but can not indicate that it came from a lawyer advertisement.

c. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 26 -- Newspaper Reports about Plaintiff --

is MOOT based on an agreement between the parties.

d. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 22 -- Absent Witness -- is held in

ABEYANCE. For the issue to remain live, the parties must submit briefs

regarding specific witnesses by 5 p.m. Wednesday August 2, 2006. 

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 6
3

e. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 23 -- Persons Not Sued -- is GRANTED. 

However, Defendant may raise this issue before Judge Wilson if there is case

law to the contrary.

f. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 27 -- Family’s Use of HRT -- is GRANTED.

g. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 28 -- Family History of Cancer -- is

DENIED assuming that Defendant can present expert testimony and evidence

of family history; otherwise, Defendant will be precluded from addressing this

issue.

h. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 29 -- Personal Use of HRT by Any Lawyer

or Witness -- is more appropriately addressed at trial.

i. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 30 -- Breast Cancer Statistics -- is MOOT

based on an agreement between the parties that it must be addressed at trial. 

j. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 31 -- Cardiac Benefit -- is DENIED so long

as the evidence is presented for the purposes of establishing that Defendant

had a reasonable basis for promoting a cardiac benefit.

k. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 32 -- Risk Factors -- is taken UNDER

ADVISEMENT. Defendant is directed to submit the relevant studies by 

5 p.m., Thursday, July 27, 2006 with briefing. Plaintiff’s response must be

filed by 5 p.m., Monday, July 31, 2006.

l. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 35 -- Number of Premarin/Prempro Users --

is MOOT based on an agreement between the parties that it must be addressed

at trial.

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 6
4

m. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 36 -- FDA approval -- is DENIED but the

parties should attempt to agree on a limiting instruction.

n. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 38 -- Email Correspondence -- is

GRANTED but Defendant may raise the issue again by pointing out the

relationship between the parties and showing that the email is an admission.

7. Defendant’s Omnibus Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 206) is GRANTED IN PART, 

DENIED IN PART, and WITHDRAWN IN PART:

a. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Bar Evidence or Argument that it was

knowable prior to WHI that HRT could cause breast cancer is

WITHDRAWN.

b. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 2 to Barr Argument and Testimony Based on

Nonexistent Failure to Warn Patient is GRANTED with regard to the legal

duty to warn.

c. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 3 to Bar Reference to Other Hormone Therapy

Claimants or Cases and to Past Litigation Involving Other Wyeth

Pharmaceutical Products is MOOT based on an agreement between the

parties.

d. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 4 to Bar Reference to Post-May 2000 Labeling

Changes for Premarin and Prempro is DENIED but the parties should attempt

to agree on a limiting instruction.

e. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 5 to Bar Reference to Premarin/Prempro Sales

Trends is GRANTED, except with regard to Plaintiff’s prescribing physician.

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 4 of 6
5

f. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to Bar Reference to the Profit Margin for

Premarin and Prempro is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT.

g. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Hearsay Evidence will be

addressed as the issues arise at trial.

h. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 10 to Exclude Evidence Regarding Foreign

Labeling is DENIED. However, Plaintiff may present the evidence only on

the issue of notice. The parties should attempt to agree on a limiting

instruction

i. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 11 to Bar Evidence or Argument About the

History and Events Leading to Wyeth’s Inclusion of an Endometrial Cancer

Warning in the Premarin Label is DENIED. Plaintiff can argue the

connection between endometrial cancer and estrogen and that it triggers a

duty to study estrogen plus progestin in breast cancer. In doing so, Plaintiff

can present evidence of how the endometrial cancer/estrogen association was

discovered. If Defendant argues that when FDA standards are met, it has no

additional duties, Plaintiff may present evidence of Defendant’s response to

the discovery of the endometrial cancer/estrogen association and the FDA’s

response to Defendant.

j. Wyeth’s Motion to Quash Trial Subpoenas and Motion in Limine No. 12 to

Bar Presentation of Testimony of Kevin Beckwith and Jennifer Reynolds at

Trial is DENIED. Given the limitations described by Plaintiff, there is some

relevance. However, Plaintiff will be limited to the description given in oral

argument.

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 5 of 6
6

k. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 13 to Bar Reference to FDA Warning Letter is

DENIED.

l. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 14 to Bar Reference to the Corfman Memos is

GRANTED except that Plaintiff may use the memo to address the issue of

notice.

m. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 15 to Bar Argument and Testimony that

Hormone Therapy Initiated Plaintiffs Breast Cancers is WITHDRAWN.

n. Wyeth’s Motion in Limine No. 16 to Bar Argument and Evidence Regarding

Low Dose Prempro is GRANTED. In order for the court to reconsider this

ruling, Plaintiff, by 5 p.m., Thursday, July 27, 2006 must submit a brief

addressing available technology (low-dose).

The parties must submit modified deposition designations within ten days of the date of this

order.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of July, 2006.

_____________________________________

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 287 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 6