Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01169/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01169-17/pdf.json

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

---

1

Doc. Nos. 375, 377.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

DONNA SCROGGIN

v.

WYETH, et. al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:04CV01169

 PLAINTIFF

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

 I have reviewed the parties’ submissions regarding the time limits for trial.1 Plaintiff will 

be allotted 50% of the total time; and Defendants will be allotted 25% each.

The problem, as I see it, is that the parties are straining against the time limits, when they

should be spending more time paring their case down for rifle-shot presentations. 

I was a little uncomfortable with trying to set time limits for the first two trials. It is

always difficult for a judge to know what is really important when she or he is hearing the

evidence for the first time. Now, however, I have conducted two trials involving substantially

similar issues. 

As I have noted several times, it is my opinion that substantially too much time was spent

in most phases of the first two trials. Whether counsel believe it or not, these time limits should

improve your presentations from the jury’s standpoint (which is the crucial standpoint).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2008.

/s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-01169-BRW Document 436 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 1