Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02690/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02690-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Catherine Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wyeth LLC; Pfizer Inc., individually and

as successor in interest to Pharmacia &

Upjohn Co.; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-02690-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to exclude opinions of plaintiff's expert

Michael Maloney (doc. 78), plaintiff's response (doc. 84), and defendants' reply (doc. 100).

We also have before us defendants' motion to exclude opinions of plaintiff's expert Dr.

Hollon (doc. 80), plaintiff's response (doc. 96), and defendants' reply (doc. 104).

I

Plaintiff took hormone replacement drugs between 1982 and 1998, which she alleges

caused her to develop breast cancer. Plaintiff asserts claims relating to her ingestion of

Premarin and Provera under theories of negligence, strict liability, and fraud.

Expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid. if it is "scientific,

technical, or other specialized knowledge" that "will help the trier of fact to understand the

evidence or to determine a fact in issue," and "the testimony is based on sufficient facts or

data. . . the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and [] the expert has

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 6
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 -

reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702. The

court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure that expert testimony "is both relevant and reliable."

Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 836 (9th Cir. 2011). The

gatekeeping function applies to all expert opinions, whether based on specialized, technical,

or scientific knowledge. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 148-49, 119 S.

Ct. 1167, 1174-75 (1999). We "determine reliability in light of the particular facts and

circumstances of the particular case." Id. at 158, 119 S. Ct. at 1179.

II

Dr. Michael Maloney has a Ph.D. in economics and is a professor of economics. One

of the courses he teaches is financial economics. Plaintiff seeks to have Dr. Maloney testify

on one issue: Wyeth's net worth. Plaintiff argues that this testimony will be helpful to the

jury in assessing the amount of punitive damages. Defendants do not object to Dr. Maloney's

qualifications. Instead, they argue that his net worth opinion is inadmissible because it is

irrelevant to a determination of punitive damages. On the contrary, the Supreme Court, the

Ninth Circuit, and the Arizona Supreme Court have all recognized that evidence of net worth

may be considered by juries assessing possible punitive damages. See TXO Prod. Corp. v.

Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28, 113 S. Ct. 2711, 2722 n.28 (1993) (under "wellsettled law" evidence of net worth "typically considered in assessing punitive damages");

White v. Ford Motor Co., 500 F.3d 963, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2007) (Nevada law requiring jury

to consider defendant's financial position when assessing punitive damages "is consistent

with the Supreme Court's and this circuit's longstanding recognition of the admissibility of

net worth evidence"); Acheson v. Shafter, 107 Ariz. 576, 578, 490 P.2d 832, 834 (1971)

("The law is well-established that where punitive damages are properly in issue, inquiry may

be made into a defendant's wealth. . . and may be made known to the jury so that it may

impose an appropriate 'punishment.'").

Defendants next argue that Dr. Maloney's calculation of net worth is unreliable

because it is not based on generally accepted accounting principles, and unnecessary because

they are willing to stipulate to Wyeth's net worth if it is calculated by subtracting Wyeth's

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

liabilites from its assets. Plaintiff responds that this argument goes more to the evidence's

weight than its admissibility. We agree. Dr. Maloney indicates in a supplemental affidavit

that in the field of financial economics, net worth is calculated by looking to the market value

of assets (this calculation is identical to market capitalization). Response to Mot. to Exclude

Maloney, ex. 4 at ¶ 12. He states that this methodology is described in standard financial

economics textbooks. Id. Defendants have not offered any evidence suggesting otherwise.

Although they may disagree with Dr. Maloney's calculation of net worth based on financial

economics principles, this is a challenge more appropriately addressed by cross-examination.

"Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on

the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but

admissible evidence." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596, 113 S. Ct.

2786, 2798 (1993). Dr. Maloney will be permitted to testify concerning Wyeth's net worth

if the issue of punitive damages arises.

 Dr. Maloney also opines, however, that punitive damages should be large compared

to net worth to appropriately punish, and that when assessing punitive damages the "true

value" of a company (determined, in his opinion, by using his calculation of net worth) is

what is important. He describes three methods he developed for calculating punitive

damages based on analogies to fines for SEC violations, antitrust violations, and speeding

fines. Plaintiff avers that Dr. Maloney will not testify about defendants' conduct or about the

propriety of awarding punitive damages. Dr. Maloney's testimony on any of the other topics

described above is inappropriate. The amount of punitive damages awarded "is a question

peculiarly within the province of the jury." Acheson, 107 Ariz. at 579, 490 P.2d at 835. Dr.

Maloney's opinions as to the appropriate assessment of punitive damages awards and

suggested methods for calculating punitive damages usurp the jury's role and are

inadmissible.

III

Dr. Matthew Hollon is an internal medicine physician and a clinical associate

professor of medicine. He has conduced research and written articles on the marketing of

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 3 of 6
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 1

 Dr. Wilmoth is deceased, so was not deposed.

- 4 -

pharmaceutical drugs. Dr. Hollon proposes to testify about the standard of care for the

marketing and promotion of prescription drugs and how defendants breached that standard.

In essence, Dr. Hollon will opine that Wyeth's aggressive marketing of hormone replacement

drugs resulted in the prescribing of these drugs to "women who did not need hormone

replacement," and that "many women who needed it perhaps only for short-term relief were

kept on it for years." Mot. to Exclude Hollon, ex. 9 at 87. He concludes that but for Wyeth's

marketing campaign, "physicians would not have been conditioned to prescribe this drug and

most of these women would not have sought out this drug and many women would have

avoided the harms attendant to hormone therapy." Id. 

Defendants do not question Dr. Hollon's qualifications. Instead, they first argue that

Dr. Hollon's testimony is irrelevant because it does not fit the facts of this case. Specifically,

they point out that there is no evidence that plaintiff's physician, Dr. Wilmoth, relied on any

marketing or promotional material when deciding to prescribe Premarin and Provera to

plaintiff.1

 Additionally, plaintiff testified that Dr. Wilmoth did not give her any written

materials about these drugs, had never heard of them prior to receiving a prescription, and

never saw any advertisements for Premarin or Provera. She states that advertising played no

role in her decision to continue taking these drugs. Mot. to Exclude Hollon, ex. 11.

Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that Dr. Hollon's testimony is relevant because he explains

"that physicians are notoriously wrong in describing what does and does not influence their

prescribing practices," and that "the specific testimony of any single physicians [sic] alleging

that pharmaceutical promotional practices do not affect them is exactly the point." Response

to Mot. to Exclude Hollon at 8-9 (emphasis in original).

But this is not a case where a prescribing doctor claims that he was not influenced by

Wyeth's efforts. Here, plaintiff has not presented any evidence suggesting that Dr. Wilmoth

was ever exposed to Wyeth's marketing efforts. Without a link between Wyeth's marketing

and plaintiff's prescribing doctor, Dr. Hollon's opinions about the subtle effects of marketing

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 4 of 6
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

 Other courts have excluded Dr. Hollon's testimony in hormone replacement therapy

litigation against Wyeth for similar reasons. See Hines v. Wyeth, 2:04-0690, 2011 WL

2680834, at *4 (S.D.W. Va. July 8, 2011) (Dr. Hollon's testimony excluded as irrelevant

when "nowhere in the record is there evidence suggesting that plaintiff or her prescribing

physicians were influenced by defendants' promotional conduct"); In re Prempro Prods. Liab.

Litig., 4:03CV1507-WRW, 4:04CV01169, 2007 WL 4189510, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 15,

2007) (Dr. Hollon's testimony excluded from liability stage of trial based on inability to tie

opinions to "evidence that shows reliance on certain marketing materials").

- 5 -

on prescribing practices are irrelevant. A person cannot be affected by marketing, even

subliminally, unless he was exposed. And Dr. Hollon's opinion that Wyeth's marketing

influenced women to seek out hormone replacement drugs is irrelevant when plaintiff

confirmed that she never saw any advertisements for Premarin or Provera, and had never

even heard of these drugs prior to being prescribed them. Dr. Hollon's testimony, in other

words, will not help the jury. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591-92, 113 S. Ct. at 2796

(helpfulness "requires a valid [] connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to

admissibility"). Neither are Dr. Hollon's opinions relevant to the issue of punitive damages.

For the same reasons as discussed above, plaintiff has presented no nexus between Wyeth's

advertising and the "specific harm" that she suffered.2

 See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 422, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 1522 (2003) (evidence of tortious conduct

justifying punitive damages "must have a nexus to the specific harm suffered by the

plaintiff"). 

IV

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART defendants' motion to exclude opinions

of plaintiff's expert Michael Maloney (doc. 78). Dr. Maloney's testimony will be limited to

his calculation of Wyeth's net worth, should evidence relating to punitive damages become

necessary. His opinions regarding the size of an appropriate punitive damage award, that it

is important to assess the "true value of a company" when awarding punitive damages, and

how a punitive damages award can be calculated based on analogies to SEC fines, antitrust

violations, and speeding fines are excluded. This ruling is without prejudice to defendants

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

making other appropriate objections to the offering of net worth evidence at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to exclude opinions

of plaintiff's expert Dr. Hollon (doc. 80). However, this is without prejudice to the right of

plaintiff to offer such evidence if plaintiff first offers evidence that plaintiff or her physician

were likely to have been influenced by Wyeth's marketing efforts.

DATED this 5th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02690-FJM Document 112 Filed 04/05/12 Page 6 of 6