Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163-6/pdf.json

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

---

1

See American Federation of Government Employees Local 922 v. Ashcroft, 354 F. Supp.

2d 909 (E.D. Ark. 2003); In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 2:05-MD-01657-EEF, 2006

WL 2037349 (E.D. La. Jul. 21, 2006).

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 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Appearance at Trial of Wyeth’s Corporate

Representatives Michael Dey and Justin Victoria (Doc. No. 256), Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine

No. 39 to Exclude References to Dr. Gueriguian’s Confrontation with Warner Lambert Company

and its Drug Rezulin (Doc. No. 265), and Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Plaintiff’s

Motion in Limine 25 -- Oral Contraceptive Use (Doc. No. 283).

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appearance

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Appearance at Trial of Wyeth’s Corporate

Representatives Michael Dey and Justin Victoria (Doc. No. 256) is GRANTED.1 Plaintiff’s 

counsel are directed to be reasonably accommodating to these individuals insofar as their

appearance at trial is concerned (as an example, I assume Plaintiff’s counsel does not intend to

have them in the courthouse in Little Rock for the entire trial).

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 300 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 2
2

B. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 39

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 39 to Exclude References to Dr. Gueriguian’s

Confrontation with Warner Lambert Company and its Drug Rezulin (Doc. No 265) is DENIED.

C. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration Re: Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 25 -- Oral

Contraceptive Use (Doc. No. 283) is DENIED. The exclusion of this evidence is bottomed upon

FRE 403, not FRE 402.

I assume that Defendant has no evidence that Plaintiff was specifically warned about the

risks associated with oral contraceptives.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2006.

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 300 Filed 07/28/06 Page 2 of 2