Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02414/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02414-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

-1- 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLOYD COFFMAN, VONNA COFFMAN, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

WYETH, et al., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. S-03-CV-02414 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER 

AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) ORDER 

Trial in this matter is set for April 4, 2006. The plaintiff contends that he has suffered 

neurological injuries due to the ingestion of the drug, metoclopramide. The parties, by and 

through their respective counsel, are in active settlement negotiations, and anticipate non-binding 

private mediation, if necessary, to resolve this case informally. On May 25, 2005, in order to 

allow the settlement process the maximum possibility for success, and in an effort to obviate the 

expense associated with expert designations (then due June 1, 2005), the parties agreed to a 45-

day continuance on all dates set forth in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. On May 25, 

2005, based upon the parties stipulation, the Court ordered a 45-day continuance of the dates set 

for expert designation (now set for July 15, 2005), rebuttal expert designation (now set for 

August 10, 2005), discovery (now set for September 26, 2005), filing of dispositive motions 

(now set for December 2, 2005), and trial (now set for April 4, 2006). 

At the time of their stipulation, the parties were working to obtain information regarding 

the identity of the manufacturer(s) that produced the metoclopramide ingested by plaintiff. 

Case 2:03-cv-02414-FCD-JFM Document 26 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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- 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

Metoclopramide is prescribed to patients suffering from gastroesophageal reflux, among other 

conditions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first authorized the distribution of 

metoclopramide in the United States in 1979 under the brand name of Reglan® . Its patent 

expired on December 12, 1984. There are now more than 30 manufacturers of generic 

metoclopramide. Consequently, information regarding the identity of the entity that 

manufactured the metoclopramide ingested by plaintiff is essential to a determination of liability 

and key to the progress of settlement negotiations. 

On May 25, 2005, at the time the parties agreed to continue the dates herein, the parties 

did not know who manufactured the metoclopramide ingested by plaintiff. Deposition testimony 

of pharmacy personnel from David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base (hereinafter 

referred to as “DGMC”), the plaintiff’s healthcare provider, revealed that pharmacy records 

previously thought by the parties to identify the manufacturer of the metoclopramide distributed 

to plaintiff, may not in fact provide that information. However, as of the time that the parties 

agreed to continue pre-trial and trial dates to allow time for meaningful settlement negotiations 

before expert disclosures, counsel for defendant Wyeth was led to believe it would shortly 

receive documents from DGMC identifying the manufacturer of the metoclopromide purchased 

by DGMC. Declaration of Seong Seo (“Seo Declaration,”) filed herewith, ¶ 12. Nonetheless, 

despite repeated assurances from representatives at DGMC in response to Wyeth’s subpoena, the 

requested information was not forthcoming. Seo Declaration, ¶ 12-14. 

Absent information regarding the manufacturer of the metoclopramide ingested by 

plaintiff, the parties were unable to engage in the meaningful settlement negotiations they had, in 

good faith, anticipated at the time of the initial stipulation and order extending dates for pretrial 

and trial. On Friday, June 17, 2005, counsel for Wyeth learned for the first time that DGMC 

would produce a print out that would show that the generic metoclopramide purchased by 

DGMC during the relevant time period—and, presumably, distributed during the same period—

were those manufactured by ESI Lederle Laboratories and Pliva Pharmaceuticals. On June 24, 

2005, Wyeth will take the deposition of the second PMK designated by DGMC regarding 

product identification and the information revealed in the DGMC print out. Once this 

Case 2:03-cv-02414-FCD-JFM Document 26 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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- 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

information, which was promised weeks ago, is obtained the parties will then be in a position to 

negotiate a settlement because the product distributed during the relevant time period will have 

been identified. 

Consequently, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, agree that a further 60 

day continuance of all dates set forth in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order is necessary if the 

parties are to genuinely consider the prospect of resolving this matter short of trial and the 

expensive task of retaining and deposing multiple expert witnesses. Consequently the parties 

agree to a further continuance of pre-trial dates as follows: 

(a) The parties experts shall be designated not later than September 13, 2005. 

(b) Rebuttal experts shall be designated not later than October 10, 2005. 

(c) All discovery shall be completed by November 25, 2005. 

(d) All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than January 31, 2006. 

(e) The final pretrial conference is scheduled for April 7, 2006. 

(f) The trial is set for June 5, 2006 at 9:00 am. 

All other requirements of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order will remain in effect. 

Dated: June ____, 2005 GORDON & REES, LLP 

By: 

Melissa M. Fairbrother 

Attorneys for Defendant WYETH 

Dated: June ____, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS A. AMBROSE 

By: 

Thomas A. Ambrose 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLOYD COFFMAN 

and VONNA COFFMAN 

ORDER

Having considered the Stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dates set forth in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) 

Order shall be amended as follows: 

Case 2:03-cv-02414-FCD-JFM Document 26 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

-4- 

SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER 

(a) The parties experts shall be designated not later than September 13, 2005. 

(b) Rebuttal experts shall be designated not later than October 7, 2005. 

(c) All discovery shall be completed by November 28, 2005. 

(d) All dispositive motions shall be heard no later than January 27, 2006. 

(e) The final pretrial conference is scheduled for April 21 2006 at 1:30 p.m. 

(f) The trial is set for June 20, 2006 at 9:00 am. 

All other requirements of the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order will remain in effect. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 27, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr._________

 Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 United States District Judge 

AHP\1015505\790779.1 

Case 2:03-cv-02414-FCD-JFM Document 26 Filed 06/28/05 Page 4 of 4