Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-md-01699/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-md-01699-988/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE BEXTRA AND CELEBREX

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND

PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION,

 /

This document relates to:

Beverly Haslam, 06-2145 CRB

___________________________________/

No. MDL 05-01699 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

 Plaintiff Beverly Haslam alleges that her husband suffered a heart attack and died as

resulting of ingesting the prescription drug Bextra. Plaintiff makes claims for negligence,

strict liability (inadequate warning), breach of warranty, and fraud. The gravamen of the

complaint is that defendants failed to warn plaintiff’s husband and his prescribing physician

of Bextra’s cardiovascular side effects. Now pending before the Court are the parties’

motions in limine. After carefully considering the parties’ motions, and having had the

benefit of oral argument, the Court rules as is set forth below.

A. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

No. 1: To Exclude Evidence Of Bextra Promotional Communications

Defendants’ motion no. 1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff may

offer evidence of what Pfizer communicated directly to Dr. Gaspari through sales

representatives and promotional material provided to Dr. Gaspari. All other promotional 

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 2429 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

evidence, including Pfizer’s promotion of other drugs, is excluded as irrelevant.

No. 2: To Exclude Evidence That Pfizer Provided Inadequate Information

To The FDA

Defendants’ motion no. 2 is GRANTED. 

No. 3: To Exclude Evidence Of Or Argument Regarding Out-Of-State

Conduct, Claims For Non-Parties, Claims About Other Prescription

Drugs, And Pfizer’s Wealth

Defendants’ motion no. 3 is GRANTED.

No. 4: To Exclude Evidence Of “Off-Label” Promotion

Defendants’ motion no. 4 is GRANTED, except that plaintiff may offer evidence of

what Pfizer communicated directly to Dr. Gaspari.

No. 5: To Exclude Evidence Related To Foreign Regulatory Material

Defendants’ motion no. 5 is GRANTED.

No. 6: To Exclude Evidence Of Improper Argument Regarding Damages

In light of plaintiff’s agreement not to argue damages arising from plaintiff’s son’s

divorce, defendants’ motion no. 6 is DENIED.

B. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

No. 1: To Exclude Evidence Or Discussion Concerning Defendant’s

Reputation And/Or Good Acts

Plaintiff’s motion no. 1 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants may

admit evidence that provides some background, such as what they identify on page one of

their opposition. Evidence of other conduct, such as their program to supply drugs to

uninsured individuals, is excluded.

No. 2: To Preclude Pfizer’s Employees From Offering Undisclosed Expert

Opinions

Plaintiff’s motion no. 2 is DENIED without prejudice to plaintiff moving to exclude

specific testimony.

No. 3: To Exclude Pfizer From Arguing That FDA Regulations Prohibited

The Company From Making Label Changes Without Prior a

Agency Approval

In light of defendants’ representation that they do not intend to make such an

argument, plaintiff’s motion no. 3 is DENIED as moot.

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 2429 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\Haslam\misc\order2motionsinlimine.wpd 3

No. 4: To Exclude Evidence Concerning Gastrointestinal Safety

Plaintiff’s motion no. 4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants may

offer evidence of the reason for the development of Cox-2 inhibitors such as Bextra,

including the hypothesis that they would have fewer gastrointestinal side effects than

traditional NSAIDs. Additional evidence as to gastrointestinal safety is collateral and

therefore excluded.

No. 5: To Exclude Evidence Or Argument To Plaintiff’s Medical

Conditions Where There Is No Expert Proof That Those Conditions

Contributed To His Injury 

Plaintiff’s motion no. 5 is DENIED.

No. 6: To Preclude Pfizer From Making Any References To FDA

Preemption Or The Preemption Preamble

In light of defendants’ representation that they do not intend to argue preemption to

the jury, plaintiff’s motion no. 6 is DENIED as moot.

No. 7: To Exclude Evidence Or Argument That Plaintiff’s Treating

Physicians Took Bextra or Vioxx

Plaintiff’s motion no. 7 is GRANTED. 

No. 8: To Preclude Any Inference Or Suggestion That Information Was

Given To FDA Unless There Is “Proof” That Such Information 

Was Provided To The FDA

In light of defendants’ representation that it does not intend to offer any such

evidence, plaintiff’s motion no. 8 is DENIED as moot.

No. 9: Precluding The Use Of Any Standard Of Causation Other Than

The Substantial Factor Test When Questioning Witnesses And

Making Other Statements

Plaintiff’s motion no. 9 is DENIED. The Court will give the Utah Model Jury

Instruction on the definition of cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 2429 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\1699\Haslam\misc\order2motionsinlimine.wpd 4

Case 3:05-md-01699-CRB Document 2429 Filed 04/30/08 Page 4 of 4