2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-25-2005 

# I n Re: D iet D r u gs P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3591

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" I n Re: Die t Dr u gs " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1552. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/15521 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT Nos. 04-3591, 04-3643 and 04-4096

IN R E: DIE T DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/F ENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAM INE)

PRODUCT S LI ABI LI TY LI TI GATI ON Clara Clark and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Linda Smart and her agents, attorneys and derivative clai mants; Linda Eichmiller and her agents, att orneys and derivati ve claimants; Crystal l Gatlin and her agents, attorneys and deri vative claimants; Lonelle James and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Doris Caldwell and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Mitzi Wilson and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Brenda Cook and Richard Cook and thei r agents , attorney s and

derivative clai mants, Appellant s at No. 04- 3591

IN RE : CLA RA C LAR K, and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; LIND A SM ART , and her agents, attorneys and derivati ve claimants; LIND A EIC HM ILLER , and her agents, attorneys and derivati ve claimants; CRY STA LL G ATL IN, and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; LON ELL E JAM ES, and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; DO RIS CA LDW ELL , and her agents, attorneys and derivati ve claimants; MIT ZI WIL SON , and her agents, attorneys and derivati ve claimants;

BRENDA COO K an d RI CHARD COOK, and their agents, at

torneys and deri vative claimants, Petitioners at No. 04-36432 IN RE: DI ET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCT S LI ABI LI TY LI TI GATI ON Clara Clark and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Linda Smart and her agents, attorneys and derivative clai mants; Linda Eichmiller and her agents, att orneys and derivati ve claimants; Crystal l Gatlin and her agents, attorneys and deri vative claimants; Lonelle James and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Doris Caldwell and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Mitzi Wilson and her agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants; Brenda Co ok and Richard C ook and their agents, attorney s and derivative clai mants,

Appellant s at No. 04- 4096

____________ App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. No. MDL 1203) District Cou rt Judge: H onorab le Harve y Bartle, III

____________ Argued November 16, 2004 Be for e: R OT H, S M ITH and W EIS , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: January 25, 2005) John G . Harkins, Jr. Steven A. Reed Harkins Cunningham 2005 Market Stree t 2800 O ne Co mm erce Squ are Philadelphia, PA 191033

George M. Fleming Syl via Davidow Fleming & Associat es 1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 3030 Houston, TX 77056

Attorneys for Appellants/Peti tioners Fred S. Longer Arn old L evin M ichae l D. F ishbe in Levin, Fi shbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Stre et, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Attorney s for Plainti

ffs ’ Management Comm itt ee and Class Counsel Robert D. Rosenbaum M. Sean Laane Arnold & Porter 555 12 th Str ee t , N. W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Peter L . Zim roth Arnold & Porter 399 Park Avenue New Y ork, NY 10022-4690 Paul B. Kerri gan Ree d Sm ith 1650 Market Stree t 2500 One LibertyPlace Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301

At to rn ey s f

or Amer ic an Home Products Corporat ion

____________ OPI NION

____________4

W EIS , Circuit

Judge
. The underly ing is sues here involve c laims of pe rsonal injury caus ed by t he use of two appetite s uppressant drugs produce d and dist ribut ed by Wye th. We provi ded a lengthy summary of t

he facts in our opi nions at 369 F.3d 293 (3d Cir . 2004) and 282 F. 3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002). Consequently , we will limi t our r estatement of the ba ckground here. I. In the m id-19 90s, d ata sur face d sug gesting a link b etwe en us e of th e W yeth diet dr ugs and valvul ar heart

diseas e (VHD) in humans. As a resul t, t housands of lawsuit s were fil ed against Wyeth i n stat e and federalcourts . The Judi cial Panel for Multidis tri ct Litigati on trans ferred al l the f ederal acti ons to the United States Dist rict Co urt f or th e E aste rn D istrict of P enn sylvan ia.

In 1999 , the parties reached a tentative settlement ag reemen t for a nationwide class . In exchange for Wyeth’s pay ment of $3.75 bi lli on, the agreement provided t

hat set tli ng class members would rele ase Wyeth from all VHD clai ms. After conducting a fairness hearing, t he District Court entered a fi nal order certi fying the cl ass and approving t

he settlement on August 28, 2000. The terms of the set tlement agreement and th e fina l order indica ted tha t the D istrict Co urt sha ll have contin uing jurisdictio n to adm inister, inter pret an d enf orce th e settlem ent ag reem ent.

C las s m em be rs w er e e nt itle d t o o pt ou t o f th e s ett lem en t ag re em en t in itia lly, at an i ntermedi ate st age or at the "back- end." Those who deci ded to opt- out at t he5

intermediate s tage were i nformed that the scope of

their clai ms would be limi ted and spec ifically they w ere pre clude d fro m “s eekin g” pu nitive, ex emp lary, or mu ltiple dam age s. Th e se ttlem ent a gre em ent r ead s,

“[Inte rmediat e opt-out s] may not seek puni tive, exemplary , or any mu ltiple dam ages again st [W yeth];.... [Interm ediate optouts] may not use any previous verdicts or j udgments against [Wyeth] , or fac tual f

indings necessary t o such verdi cts or judg men ts, for p urpo ses of establish ing cla ims o r facts in order t o obtain a

verdict or judgment.
. . . Nor may [an intermediate opt -out]
... seek to i ntroduce i nto evide nce against [Wyeth] , for any

purpose, such a verdi ct, judgment or factualfinding. ” In return for these li mitations, Wyeth agr eed not t o assert any s tatute of limitations, laches, or similar defenses against the intermediate opt- outs. In st at e co ur ts , mo st

of t he o pt -o utpl ai nt if

fs pl ead ed t

hei r c la ims in te rms that appeared t o abide bythe prohi biti on on seeking puni tive da mages. However, t acti cs emp loyed du ring litiga tion de mo nstrated that som e plain tiffs w ere attem pting to obtain puniti ve-type damages thr ough such means as i nflat ed mental angui sh recovery and by presenting evide nce of repre hensibl e conduct byWyeth. A. Ini tia l Inj uncti ons In respons e to the atte mpted cir cumvention of t he puniti ve damages bar, the Distri ct Court i ssued PTO 2625 in plai ntiff Clara Clar

k’s caseas well as a simil ar pret rial order, PTO 2828, applicabl e to othe r plai ntiff s. I n additi on, the court i ssued PTO 3088 enjoini ng plaint

iffs fr om making arguments r elat ed to punit ive damages and mal icious or1 We a ddres se d ou r o pi ni on to PT O 28 28, di re ct ed to Cl ark; how ev er , w e

also not ed that

the Dist rict Court would pres umably “ modify a ll or ders” at issue i n the appeal i n accordance wit h the revi sions t o PTO 2828.

6 wa nton cond uct by W yeth, as w ell as pro hibiting them from introdu cing s pecif ic categories of evidence and identified exhibi ts. B. Initi al Appeal Plaintiffs appea led, contendi ng that t he injunc tions did not compl y with the settlement agr eement or notions of feder alis m. On May 25, 2004, we vacat ed PTO 2828 and remanded w ith inst ructions to the District Court to modify its pre-t rial orders
. 1 In re Diet Drugs , 369 F.3d at 317-19 . We co ncluded that the District Cou rt had the po wer, under the AllWrits Act, to effect uate and pr otect

the te rms of the s ettl ement thr ough pretrial in junctio ns af fectin g state c ourt p rocee ding s. Ho we ver, w e cau tioned that op touts must

be able t o fairl y l iti gate the clai ms preserve d under the a greement, and that “intr usion i nto st ate court procee dings shoul d be minimize d.” Id. at 317.

We noted that PTO 2828 was appropri ate i n so far as it pr ohibited the parties f rom : (i) introducing any evi dence relevant “exclusively ” to punitive damages,

specificall y evidence of Wyeth’s: (a) profit s, si ze or fi nancialconditi on, and (b) amount or si ze of sal es of diet drugs or ot

her product s; and (ii) mak ing “‘a ny statem ent or a rgum ent to th e ... jury related d irectly to evid enc e rele van t on ly to pu nitiv e da ma ges .”2 This appealwas filed by the pla inti ffs in s even state cases. They colle ctive ly app eale d fr om Pre trial O rde r N o. 38 88 e nter ed o n A ugu st 30 , 200 4. 7 Id
. In addition to s pecifi call y appr oving portions of PTO 2828, we required that the fo llow ing p rovisio ns be excise d:

(i) categ orical e viden tiary restriction s that ba rred ev idenc e relev ant to prov ing V HD claim s; (ii) limi tati ons on exhibi ts and depos iti on testimony t hat prec luded evidence r elevant

to VHD claims; and (iii) prohibi tions on "making anystat ement or ar gument to the court” on matter s other

than thos e specif

ied. Id. at 317-18. Finall y, in addit ion to t he required revis ions and spe cifi call y appr oved provisi ons, we suggested that the Dist rict Court consi der other

measures as ide from imp osin g ev iden tiary res train ts,

“for example, or dering l anguage to be i ncluded in a stipulat ion or proposed j ury inst

ructi on that

wo uld m ake it c lear to the jury that exemplarydamages may not be awarded. Or
... direct [ing] the pa rti es to agree to a bifurcated trial-wh ere dam ages are determi ned apart f rom liabili ty-i n the even t that the state court we re to dee m it a dvi sab le.” Id. at 318. C. PTO 3888 and District Court Actions Thereafte r In respons e to our May 2004 opi nion and aft er heari ng argument fr om the parti es, t he District Court

issued PTO 3888 2 which reads as follows:Following t he issua nce of PTO 3888, the Dist rict Court fil ed Pretrial Order No. 3962 which address ed the pl ainti ffs’ emergenc y moti on to st ay PTO 3888's injunct ion pending appeal. Agreeing to a dopt the brief fi led in t he PTO 3888 appeal, plainti ffs appeal ed PTO 3962 on O ctober 26, 2004. 8

“AND NOW , on thi s 30 th day of August , 2004, f or the r easons set for th in the acco mp anying M emo rand um , it is hereb y OR DE RE D th at:

(1) Pret rialOrders (“PTO”) Nos. 2680, 2828, 2883, 3088, and 312 3 a re VACATED;

(2) pla intiffs, th eir age nts, attorn eys, and d erivativ e claim ants are E NJO INE D f rom introdu cing a ny evide nce, o r mak ing an y stateme nts before or argument to [t he] jury r elat ed to: (a) punitive, exemplary, or multi ple damages; (b) Wyeth’s pro fits, size, or financial condition; or (c) the amount or si ze of Wyeth’ s sale s of diet drugs or other p rodu cts; in the f ollow ing ca ses: Smart v. Ameri can Home Prods., I nc. , No. 02-04- 402 59-C V (Jim We lls Co unty, Te x.) (PT O N o. 268 0); Clark v. Wyeth, et al. , No . B02 028 2-C (Ora nge C oun ty, Tex.) (P TO No . 2828 ); Wilso n, et al. v. W yeth, et al. , No. 03cv305BN (S.D. Miss. ), and James, et al. v. Wyeth, et al. , No . 2002 -95 (S mith C oun ty, Miss.) (P TO No . 2883 ); Eichmill er v. American Home Products Corp. , Civi l Action No. 2002CV52077 (Fulton Co unt y, Ge org ia), Co ok, et a l. v. W yeth , Cause No. 2002-21 ( Hinds County, Miss.), and Caldwell v. American Home Products Corp. , No. 2002- 113 -CV 3 (Jon es C oun ty, Miss.) (P TO No . 3088 ); Gat li n v. Amer ic an Ho me Prod ucts C orp., et al. , No. 2003-4007 ( Orleans Parish, La.) (PTO No. 3123); (3) the parties in the ab ove a ctions a re ord ered p rom ptly to agree and st

ipulate to a re verse- bifurcated trial, that i s a trial i n which the issues of causation, i njuryand compensatory damages onl y ar e tri ed firs t and apart f rom liabi lit

y and t o agree and st

ipulate to a j ury inst

ructi on that pun itive, mu ltiple or e xem plary dam ages may no t be aw arded ;9 (4) pla intiffs, th eir age nts, attorn eys, and d erivativ e claim ants in the above acti ons are ENJOINED from tryi ng their acti ons unless and untilthe sai d writt en Stipul ations are fi led with t he state tri al court ; and (5) pla intiffs, th eir age nts, attorn eys, and d erivativ e claim ants in the above acti ons are ENJOINED from arguing to the s tate tri al court that the reve rse-bi furcation procedure or jury i nstruc tions set forth in t he afo resa id S tipu latio ns s hou ld n ot b e us ed.” The Di stri ctCourt

el abor at ed on and c la ri fie d certa in p rov is ion s i n PTO 3888 during a hearing on Sept ember 20, 2004 and i ncorporated its comments int o the Memorandum accompanying PTO 3962. The Court note d that t he mandatorysti pulati on for rever se bifur cati on should not be effecti ve “unless and untilthe st ate court judge r ules that reverse bi furcation is advisabl e.” The Dist rict Court als o noted that it had inadvertently

neglect ed to use t

he term “exclusivel y” i n referring to t he intr oduction of evidence or advancing argumen ts about punitive damages. II. Petitioners file d appeals wit h this Court as t o PTO 3888 and PTO 3962, as well as an e mergency petit ion for wri t of mandamus. Becaus e we have juri sdiction over the a ppe als u nde r 28 U.S .C. § 129 2(a )(1), w e ne ed n ot ad dre ss m and am us. See In re Chambers Development Co., Inc. , 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 199 8).

Th e term s of an in jun ction are r evie we d fo r an abu se o f dis creti on. In re Diet Drugs , 369 F .3d at 3 04-0 5; In re P rude ntial Ins. C o. of A m. Sa les Pra ctices L itig ., 26 1 F .3d 35 5, 3 63 (3 d C ir. 2 00 1) . W e a pp ly p len ar y re vi ew to a d ist ric t co ur t's10

construction of

a settlement agr eement; r eview of the fac tual e lements i s pursuant to the clea r erro r stan dar d. Coltec I ndus., Inc. v. Hobgood , 280 F.3 d 26 2, 26 9 (3 d C ir. 20 02)
. III. Plaintiffs ar gue that

the three major pr ovisi ons in PTO 3888, that is, the evidentiaryrestrictions, the mandatory st ipulat ion provi sion and t

he prohibi tion of arg um ent a gain st us e of rev erse bifu rcati on o r the jury ins truc tion , sho uld be v aca ted. Plaintiffs contend that

the stipulat

ion for reverse bifurcati on is not necessary , is a violat ion of the Anti-I njuncti on Act and is i nappropri ate becaus e the proc edure is not permitted, or i s disfavored, in some juris dictions.

Moreov er, plai ntiffs contend that banning argument against use of reverse bifurcation o r the jury instruction unfairly limits counsel’s represen tation in the state court and present s an ethi cal di lemma by bi nding counselto a posi tion t heir cl ients do not supp ort. Fina lly, plaintiffs a ssert tha t due p roces s proh ibits sub jecting class m emb ers to underst andings t

hat were not

expresse d or made suffi cient ly specifi c in the class notice or settle me nt ag reem ent.

After care fully

considering the pl ainti ffs’ ar guments, we agr ee with the Distri ct Court t

hat the stat e court a ctions must be tried in a ccordance wit h the set tlement agreement, parti cularl y the damage limi tati ons. These pl ainti ffs do not have unf ette red causes of act

ion in s tate courts and conduct t hat attempts to evade the s ettl ement cannot11

be permitted. Allowing plai ntiff s to defythe punit

ive damages bar

would make a mockery of

the agre ement and the Dis tri ct Court’ s juri sdiction. For the most

part, the te rms of PTO 3888 are appropri ate. They do not

en mes h the Dis tric t C our t i n e xt en si ve mi cr o- man ag eme ntof th e s tate co ur t l it

ig atio n. As we pointed out

in our May 2004 opi nion, i n some inst ances the injunct ions that predated PT O 3 888 resulted in the d istrict judg e “ef fectiv ely adop t[ing] th e role o f a trial jud ge in balanci ng the probat

ive val ue of evidence a gainst unfair prejudic e” to Wyet h. That approach would have r esult ed in the Distri ct Court c onducting a “nuanced” and “contextual” evi dentiary balanci ng that s hould be employ ed at the pretrial s tage “onl y as an extre me measure.” In re Diet Drugs , 369 F.3d at

314. By avoidi ng detai led revi ew of evidenti ary matter s, PTO 3888 stri kes an appropri ate bal ance between accompl ishi ng the herc ulean t ask of upholdi ng the te rms of the settle men t wh ile simu ltaneo usly respe cting th e state c ourts’ a bility to cond uct a trial in accordance wit

h that a greement. As a consequence, PTO 3888 does not trans gress t he limits of f ede ralism and is in c onf orm anc e w ith th e se ttlem ent a gre em ent.

Given the pl ainti ffs’ concerns about t he limi tati ons on arguments in the st at e co ur ts ove r r eve rs e bi fur cat io n or th e j ur y in stru ct io n, we be li eve th atsom e clarification is in order. In the M emoran dum accom panying PT O 39 62, the D istrict Court stat ed that

PTO 3888 w as not meant to “preve nt the parti es from provi ding anyinput request ed by t

he [state] judge a s to the advisabi lit y of r everse- bifurcation” f ollowing t

he12

subm ission of the stipulation. S imilarly, at t he hearing on Sep tember 2 0, 2004, W yeth’s

coun sel agr eed th at plain tiffs sh ould be ab le to resp ond to w hatev er con cerns the state court might

have about how rever se bifur cati on or the j ury inst ructi on would “work.” PTO 3888 w ould be improve d by a brief el aborati on.

We suggest that

the inj unction be amended so that plaint iffs would be free to res pond to inqui ries from the st ate court about a ncill ary issues includi ng, but not limi ted to, precedent

in the j urisdi ction applicable to t he use of rever se bifur cati on particularly i n light of mutual consent by t he parties; how the issues i n a reverse bifurcated trial s hould be tried and the language t o be used in a j ury inst ructi on prohibi ting a puni tive da mages award. However, t he order s hould prohi bit pl ainti ffs from stating to t

he state court t

hat reve rse bi furcation or t he juryinst

ructi on should not

be used. We suggest that

the Dist rict Court revi se thr ee provis ions of PTO 3888 that plaintiffs claimed were p roblema tic – the eviden tiary restri ction, the man datory sti pulati on provisi on and the prohibiti on of argument agai nst use of revers e bifurc ation or the jur y i nstruc tion. Specifi call y, a revis ion of the prohibi tion of argument agai nst use of

revers e bifurc ation or

the jur y i nstruc tion coul d provide couns el with a predete rmined method for re sponding t o inquiries fr om state c ourts whil e simult aneouslyadhering to, and actin g in acc ord anc e w ith, th e term s of the in jun ction and the s ettlem ent a gre em ent. Such provisi ons would all eviat e counsel’ s concerns about ethical dilemmas, proper13

repres entation of the ir cl ients ’ int erest s and the pos sibi lit y of fac ing conte mpt proceedings. The term “excl usivel y” s hould be added t o the evi dentiary restriction provisi on in accor dance with our previous opinion and s tate ments from the Distri ct Co urt. Finall y, we suggest modify ing PTO 3888 so that t he mandatorysti pulati on provisi ons clearly stat e that the st ate courts wil l make the ul timat e determinati on of whether to e mploy r everse bi furcation or t he juryinst

ructi on. Simil arly , we suggest that the Dist rict Court confi rm the st ate courts’ authori ty over the a dmissi on of impeachment

or re but tal ev iden ce a bou t top ics o ther wis e en com pas sed in th e ev iden tiary res trictio n. Acknowledgment of state court authori ty over thes e matter s is i n keeping with our previous observation that stat e judges are “capable and willi ng to enforc e the set tlement without cl ose and int

rusive supervi sion bythe Dist rict Court” or exc essive “en tang lem ent” in th eir ab ility to su per vise jud icial p roc eed ing s in th e co urtro om . In re Diet Drugs , 369 F.3d at 317. We believe that our s uggesti ons could be i ncorporated in PTO 3888 by rest ating i ts l anguage with a few modifi cati ons so that it would now read: (1 ) P re tria l Orde r No s. 268 0, 282 8, 288 3, 308 8 a nd 3 123 ar e VACAT ED; (2) Plaintiffs, their agents, attorneys, and de rivative claimants are ENJOINE D from introduci ng any evi dence, or making any stat ements befor e or argument14

to the j ury exclusi velyrelated to: ( a) punitive, exemplary , or mult iple da mages; (b) Wyeth’s profit s, si ze or fi nancialconditi on; or ( c) the a mount or si ze of Wyeth’ s sale s of diet dru gs or o ther pr odu cts; in the follow ing ca ses: Sm art v . Am erica n H om e Pr ods ., Inc. , No . 02-0 4-40 259 -CV (Jim W ells Co unty, Te x.) (PT O N o. 268 0); Clark v. Wyeth, et al. , No . B03 028 2-C (Ora nge C oun ty, Tex.) (P TO No . 2828 ); Wilson, e t al. v. Wyeth, et al. , No. 03cv305BN (S.D. Miss. ) and Jam es, et al. v. W yeth, et al. , No . 2002 -95 (S mith Co unty, M iss.) (PT O N o. 288 3); Eichmill er v. Ameri can Home Products Corp. , Civil Ac tion No . 200 2C V5 207 7 (F ulto n C oun ty, Ge org ia), Co ok, et a l. v. W yeth , Cause No. 2002-21 (Hinds County , Miss. ), and Caldwell v. American Home Products Corp. , No. 200 2-11 3-C V3 (Jone s Co unty, M iss.) (PT O N o. 308 8); Gat li n v. Amer ic an Ho me Prod ucts C orp., et al. , No. 200 3-4007 (Orleans P arish, La.) (PTO No. 31 23);

(3) A dm ission o f any ev idenc e, statem ents o r argu men ts by plaintif fs, their agents, attorneys , and deri vative clai mants rel ated t o topics (a) - (c) of pr ovisi on (2) for purposes of i mpeachment or rebut tal s hall be at the stat e tri al court ’s dis creti on; (4) The part

ies ar e ordered pr omptlyto agree and sti pulateto: ( a) a reve rsebifurc ated trial in wh ich the issues o f cau sation, in jury and c om pens atory dam ages are to be tri ed firs t and apart from li abili ty ; and (b) a jury inst ructi on that puni tive, multi ple or exemplarydamages may not be awarded. However, t he state tri al court

will make t

he ulti mate determinati on on revers e bifurc ation a nd the jur y i nstruc tion;15 (5) Pla inti ffs, t

heir age nts, attorneys , and deri vative clai mants in t he above

ac ti ons ar e ENJ OINE D fr om t ry in g the ir

ac ti ons unl es s a nd u nt ilth eyha ve fi le d the two written stipulatio ns de scribe d in p rovisio n (4) w ith the sta te trial cou rt;

(6) Plaintiffs, their agents, attorneys and d erivative claiman ts are ENJOINE D from arguing to t he state tri al court

that t he revers e bifurc ation pr ocedure or juryinst ructi on that t

hey s tipul ated t o pursuant to provi sion (4) should not be used; how ever, p laintiffs , their ag ents, atto rneys an d der ivative claim ants m ay respo nd to ques tions o r inqu iries fro m the state trial co urt abo ut ma tters w hich m ay affe ct the sta te tri al court ’s deci sion t o revers e bifurc ate or to give the juryinst ructi on includi ng, but not limited to , applica ble leg al prec eden t abou t bifurc ation, th e pote ntial leng th of th e trial, the number of witnesses, and relatedness of evidence to the phases of a revers e bifurc ated trial; (7) If a sked by the state trial cou rt wh ether re verse bifurc ation is appropriate, advisabl e or should otherwise be implemented, plaintiffs, their agents, attorneys and derivative c laimant s must answer “Iam direct ed by t he United States District Court for t

he Eastern District of Pennsyl vania to stipul ate to the use of a reverse bifurc ated trial a nd I a m n ot perm itted to ar gue o r other wise mak e statem ents ag ainst this court’ s discretionary use of that procedure; ” and (8) If ask ed by the state trial co urt judg e w hethe r to utilize, o r wh ether it would be app ropriate or advisabl e to utili ze, the jury instructi on described in the parties ’16

sti pulati ons, pl ainti ffs, t heir age nts, attorneys and derivative c laimant s must answer ‘ I am directe d by the U nited S tates D istrict Co urt for the E astern Distric t of P enns ylvania to sti pulate to a jur

y i nstruc tion t

hat punit ive, multi ple or exe mplarydamages may not be awarded and I am not permitt ed to argue against this court’ s discretionary use of such an instr uctio n.’ Accordingly , we will remand the cas e to the Distri ct Court f or further proceedi ngs consis tent wit h this opinion.

__________________________