Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_03-cv-01507/USCOURTS-ared-4_03-cv-01507-42/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

 : MDL DOCKET NO. 4:03-CV-1507-WRW

IN RE: :

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY :

LITIGATION : ALL CASES

ORDER

At the April 18, 2008 Status Conference, the parties presented their positions on

Plaintiffs’ Motion Produce Internal Documents Regarding Label Change to Premarin and

Prempro (Doc. No. 1651) -- specifically, post-2003 documents relating to communications with

the FDA about Premarin and Prempro labeling.

1. Plaintiffs and Wyeth have agreed as follows:

Wyeth will search the Prempro NDA regulatory file and produce all

communications with the FDA concerning Prempro labeling from the date of

the last search and production (2003) until the end of 2007.

Wyeth will not search for Wyeth-FDA communications in the 2003-2007

period other than in the Prempro NDA regulatory file. Nor will it produce

related documents that pertain to internal deliberations about the labeling.

Wyeth will make this further production in compromise of Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Compel and on condition that Plaintiff forego additional requests for the

production of Wyeth-FDA communications after 2007.

Plaintiffs will drop, for now and without prejudice, their demand for the

deliberative documents, and will restrict their request, for now, to the Prempro

file only, and not the FDA files for Premarin or other drugs for treatment of

menopausal symptoms.

Wyeth will not make a similar production for MPA, because Wyeth withdrew

the Cycrin in 2003 and that regulatory file was therefore closed.

2. The Motion to Compel is otherwise denied, specifically to the extent the motion seeks

to compel the production of responsive materials after 2007.

Case 4:03-cv-01507-BRW Document 1752 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Plaintiffs may renew their motion for post-2007 materials if and when they have good

and sufficient reason to do so (“good and sufficient” is used in its stoutest sense). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22d day of April, 2008.

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:03-cv-01507-BRW Document 1752 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2