I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 1 9 6 8 - S CT
BA YER CO RP OR AT

ION

v. M ARY REED

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 21/ 2004 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. JA N N IE M
. L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : CA RO L YN AL L E E N M c L AI N G ER A LD H
. J A CK S W IL L IA M F
. G O O D M A N , III R O B E R T L
. JO H N S O N , III AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : RI CH AR D J OS E P H P L E Z I A E D W A R D B L A C K M O N , J R
. PA TR I CK M A LO U F RO BE RT F AR L E Y WI L KI NS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 29/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: E N B A N C . W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T hi s i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l a r i s e s f r o m t h e Hol me s Cou n t y Ci r c u i t Cou r t ’ s d e n i a l of B ay er C o rpo rati o n ’s m o ti o n fo r a c h an g e o f v en u e. B ay er a sserts t h at t h e c ir cu itco u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng i t s m ot i on for change of venue beca us e i t w oul d exper i ence
s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce byw ayof ci t i zen bi as and pr et r i al publ i cit y if the j ur yveni r e w as
c o m p o se d o f

c iti z e n s o f

H o lm e s C o u n ty . W e f in d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt w a s c o rre c t inA di s eas e of muscl e or m us cl e t i s s ue. 1 R h a b d o m y o ly sis is th e b re a k d o w n o f m u sc le f ib e rs re su lti n g in th e re lea se o f m u sc le 2 f ib e r c o n ten ts in to th e c irc u latio n . S o m e o f th e se a re to x ic to th e k id n e ya n d f re q u e n tlyre su lt i n ki dneydamage. 

### 2 d e n y in g B a y e r C o rp o ra tio n ’s m o tio n f o r c h a n g e o f v e n u e , b u t n o t f o r th e re a so n s sta ted in t he or der
. A r evi ew of t he mer i t s of t he mot i on for change of venue s how s t hat B ay er di d not provide suffici ent evi den ce of bias , prej ud i ce or un du e i nfluence to supp ort i t s al l egati on s. FACTS ¶2. B ay er i s t he m aker of t he pr es cr i pti o n m edi cat i on B ay col ( cer i vas t at i n) , w hi ch w as pr es cr i bed byphy s i ci ans t o hel p l ow er the li p i d l evel s of peopl e s uffe r i ng fr om hi gh chol es t er ol
. Pr i or t o m as s pr oduct i on, B ay col w as appr oved byt he U ni t ed St at es Food and D r ug A dm i ni s t r at i on. I t s packa ge i ns er t des cr i bed pos s i bl e s i de- eff ect s , chemi cal i nt er act i ons and dos age w ar ni ngs for phy s i ci ans . Speci fi cal l y , t he packa ge i ns er t w ar ned of t he pos s i bi l i t yof m y opat hy w hen B ay col w as u sed i n conj unct i on w i t h anot her dr ug, 1 gemfi br ozi l , or w hen t he user i s s t ar t ed at t he hi ghes t dos age of
. 8 m g r at her t han a gr adual

s t ep- up fr om a l ow er s t ar t i ng v alue
. D es pi t e t hes e w ar ni ngs , B ay er r ece i ved r epor t s of a

se v ere t ype o f m y op at hy refer red t o as rhabd om y oly si s. T hereaft er, B ay er vol u n tar ily 2

w i t hdr ew B ay col fr om t he mar ket i n A ugus t 2001.O rig in a lly , the re w e re tw o o th e r p lain tiff s, A u b re y D e a n a n d W ill ie M c C u rd y . T h e ir 3 c laim s w e re v o lu n tar ilyse v e re d a n d tra n sf e rre d to o th e r ju risd ictio n s. A lso R e e d in iti a lly m ai nt ai ned a c l ai m agai ns tSm i t hK l i ne B eec ham C or por at i on d /b / a G l axoSm i t hK l i ne, w hi ch w a s d is m is s e d w ith p re

ju d ic e . 

### 3 ¶3. M ar y R eed had a hi s t or yof hea l t h pr obl ems i ncl udi ng a four

- y earper i od, fr om 1996- 3 2000, i n w hi ch s he w as l ar gel yi ncapa ci t at ed an d bedr i dden due t o pai n and fa t i gue i n her hands and ar m s . U nr el at ed t o t hes e pr obl ems, R eed be gan t aki ng B ay col i n M ar ch 2000 and cont i nued t aki ng i t for sev en m ont hs
. R eed gi ves no r eas on for t he di s cont i nuance of t he dr ug ot her t han “s he j us t r an out of her m edi ci ne and
. . . di dn’ t have i t r efi l l ed. ” She now

a ttribu tes p a in in h e r a rm s, h a n d s a n d sh o u ld e rs to m y o p a th yre la te d to h e r u se o f B a y c o l. H ow ever , at t he t i m e s h e u sed t he medi cat i on, s he di d not compl ai n of anyB ay col

- r el at ed in ju ri e s to h e r d o c to r, J o h n D o w n e r, M . D ., o r h e r n u rs e p ra c titio n e r. ¶4. R eed f

il ed su it o n S ep tem b er 9 , 2 0 0 2 , agai ns t B ay er aft er s eei ng an at t or ney adver t i s ement on t el evi s i on s ol i ci t i ng for B ay col us er s . I t w as not unt i l aft er her l aw s ui t w as fi l ed t hat her new phy s i ci an, C al vin R amsey , M
. D
. , di agnos ed herw i t h a B ay col

- r el at ed in ju ry. ¶5. A ft er t he ci r cui t cour t deni ed B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change o f v en u e, B ay er f il ed a p e tit io n se e k in g p e rm iss io n to f ile an in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l, w h ich p e tit io n w a s g ra n ted b y th is C o u rt
. See M .R .A .P . 5
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. T he dec i s i on t o denyor gr ant a mot i on for a cha nge of ve nue l i es w i t hi n t he di s cr et i on
o f th e tr ia l c o u rt
. B e e c h v . L e a f R iv e r F o r e s t P r o d

s ., I n c ., 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 4 4 6 , 4 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ).

### 4

W e w ill n o t o v e rt u rn th a t d e c is io n u n le s s th e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e s its d is c re tio n . Id
. I t i s t he p lain tiff ’s p re ro g a tiv e to d e c id e w h e re , am o n g p e rm iss ib le v e n u e s , to su e th e d e f e n d a n t. F or r es t C ount

y G en. Hos

p. v. C onw ay , 700 So. 2d 324, 326 ( M i s s . 1997)
. T her efor e, abs ent

w eigh tyrea so n s, a p lai n ti ff ’s ch o ice o f f o rum sh o u ld n o t be d istu rbe d
. P u rd u e P harm a, L . P. v. E s tate of

Hef f ner , 904 So. 2d 100, 102 ( M i s s . 2004)
. T hat bei ng s ai d, one of t he bas i c t enet s i n our j ur i s pr udence i s “no mat t er how gui l t yone m ay b e, no m at t er how

a tro c io u s h is c rim e , n o r h o w c e rta in h is d o o m , w h e n b ro u g h t to trial a n y w h e re h e sh a ll,

n e v e rt h e le s s , h a v e th e s a m e f a ir a n d im p a rt ia l tria l ac c o rd e d to th e m o s t in n o c e n t d e f e n d a n t.” K in g v . K e lly , 243 M i s s . 160, 173, 137 So. 2d 808, 813 ( 1962) ( quot i ng T e n n iso n v . S ta te , 79 M i s s . 708, 31 So. 421, 422 ( 1902) )
. A l t hough “t he dec i s i ons on change of venue deal p r i ma r i l y a n d p r e d o mi n a n t l y wi t h c r i mi n a l c a s e s , a p e r s o n i s a l s o e n t i t l e d t o a fa i r and i m par t i al t r i al i n a ci vi l cas e. ” Ki ng , 137 So. 2d at 813.

I . W HET HER T HE CI VI L C HA NG E OF VE NUE S TATUTE REQU I RES AN A FF I DAV I T. ¶ 7
. A ft er Ba y e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e o f n u me r o u s l e g a l a d v e r t i s e ment s and pr e- t r i al publ i ci t y( bot h i n new s paper s and on t el evi s i on) , al l egedl ypr oduci ng a l i t i gi ous envi r onm ent i n H ol m es C ount y , the ci r cui t cour t deni ed B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of venue , s t at i ng as foll ow s: N ext i s [B ay er ’ s ] m o ti on for change of venue
. [The]

C our t has r ead t he mot i on, as w ell as t he r es pons e, and t hat m ot i on i s deni ed. [The] C our t does not fi nd s uffi ci ent evi dence – t her e i s no aff

i davi t fr om anyH ol m es C ounty resi dent t hat

### 5 sa y s [ B a y e r] c o u ld n o t re c e iv e a f a ir a n d im p a r ti a l trial in H ol m es C ount y . T hat m ot i on i s deni ed.

E ven t hough t he ci r cui t cour t deni ed t he mot i on on t he gene r al bas i s of i ns uffi ci ent evi dence , the c ir cu itco u rt sp ec ifi ca ll y fa u lt ed B ay er fo r fa il ing to p rese n t a H o lm es C o u n tycit izen ’s

a f f id a v it. ¶8. B ay er cor r ect l y as s er t s t hat t he ci r cui t cour t , by r equi r i ng an aff i davi t fr om a H ol m es C ou ntyres i den t , has i m po sed an add i t i on al bu rden not requi red und er M i ssi ssi pp i l aw . M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -1 1 -5 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ) d o e s n o t re q u ire s u c h a n a f f id a v it. W h e n a sta tu te is

u n a m b ig u o u s it is in a p p ro p ri a te f o r a c o u rt to a d d o r t a k e a n y th in g a w a yf ro m it. W

al lace v . R alei gh , 815 So. 2d 1203, 1208 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ). T he s t at ut e, w hi ch has not been a m ended since 19 42 , i s cl ear and un am biguou s. O ur recent decis i on s regar ding chang e of v e n u e in

a c iv il a c tio n d o n o t re q u ir e s u c h a n a f f id a v it. See Janss en P harm aceuti ca, I nc. v. B ai ley , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 4 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Be e c h v . Le a f Ri v e r For e s t Pr o ds . , I nc. , 6 9 1 S o. 2d 446, 450 ( M i s s . 1997) ( fi ndi ng change of venue r eas onabl e bec aus e of pr et r i al p u b li cit y and

n u m e ro u s s im ilar c laim s f iled in th e sa m e c o u n ty ; b u t n o t r e q u irin g a n a f f id a v it). T h e c irc u it

cour t t her efor e er r ed w hen i t r equi r ed B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of venue t o be ac compani ed byan af fi davi t fr om a ci t i zen of t he count yi n w hi ch s ui t i s fil ed st at i ng t hat a def endant

c a n n o t r e c e i v e a f

a i r t r i a l i n t h a t c o u n t y . Ho we v e r , t h i s e r r o r i s h a r ml e s s i n a s mu c h a s we affir m t he d enial of the m oti on on differ ent gr ou nd s.

I I . CHANGE OF VE NUE BA SED ON UN DUE I NFLUENCE OR PREJ UDI CE.

### 6

¶9. B ay er cont ends t hat i t w oul d be pr ej udiced in a H o lm es C ount yt r i al beca us e ( 1) C al vi n R amsey , M
. D
. , “a pr om i nent phy s i ci an w it h an ac ti ve pr act i ce [ w i t h over 2000 pat i ent s ] i n H o lm es C o unt y , ” w oul d be t es t i fy i ng on behal f of t he pl ai nt i ff; ( 2) dozens of p lai n ti ff s reside in H o lm es C o u n ty ; (3) m o re t h an 1 3 5 p rod u ct li ab il it y /ph arm ac eu ti ca l t o rt
cases w i t h m ore t han 22 00 plai nti ffs hav e been fi l ed in H olm es C ou ntyi n the past si x y ears ; ( 4) s i gni fi cantpubl i ci t yi ncl udi ng at t or neyadver t i s ement s i n t he countyn e ws p a p e rr e gar di ng law su it s ass o ciated w it h p resc ri p ti o n d rug s w h ich h as pe rm ea ted H o lm es C o u n ty ; and (5) a l ocal host i l i t yt ow ard busi ness. ¶10. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 11- 51 ( R ev. 2004) p rov ides fo r a change of venue w her e a p a r t y: has good r eas on t o bel i eve, an d d o es bel i eve t hat , fr om t he

undue i nfl uence of t he adve r s e par t y , pr ej udi ce e xi s t i n g in t he p u b lic m in d , o r f

o r so m e o th e r su f

f icie n t ca u se to b e sta te d in t he pet i t i on, he ca nnot obt ai n a fa i r and i m part ial tr ial i n t he c o u n tyw h e re th e a c tio n is p e n d in g , an d th a t th e a p p lica tio n is m ade as soon as conveni ent aft er bei ng advi s ed of s uch undue i nfl uence , pr ej udi ce, or ot her caus e, and not t o del ayt he t r i al or to v e x o r h a ra s s th e a d v e rs e p a rt y . . . . ¶ 1 1
. B a y e r’s f

e a rs o f p re

ju d ice a re m e re ly c o n c lu so ry a lleg a tio n s a t th is s tag e . A ll o f its cl ai m s ar e bas ed on not hi ng but s uppos i t i o n . Ind eed, i n B eech v. L eaf R i ver F orest P r oduct s , I nc. , 691 So. 2d 446, 449 ( M i s s . 1997) , t he C our t hel d: Si nce par t of t he bas i s of t he change of venue m o ti o n w as t he a m o u n t o f

p re -tria l p u b licity , itw o u ld h a v e b e e n p re m a tu re to f ile s u c h a m o tio n so lo n g b e f o re th e trial (th re e m o n th s p rio r to t r i al ) t hat t he ef

fec t s of t he publ i ci t yw oul d h av e been t ooE v en tho u g h the re co rd sh o w s tha t a sch ed u li n g o rde r h ad b ee n en tered an d d isco v ery 4 c o n d u c te d , th e p a rt ie s d id n o t in c lu d e th a t s c h e d u lin g o rd e r i n th e re c o rd
. 

### 7 r emot e f

o r a d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f r e s u l t i n g p r e

j u d i c e i n t he c o m m u n i t y. N ot s t at ed, but i m pl i ed, t hi s hol di ng i s bas ed on t he C our t ’ s r eas o n ing that t he pr e- t r i al publ i ci t yon w hi ch a mot i on for change of venue s houl d be bas ed on pr e- t r i al publ i ci t yabout th e c a s e in w h ic h th e m o tio n f o r c h a n g e o f

v e n u e is f

ile d
. ¶ 1 2
. H e re , B a ye r h a s p r e s e n te d e x te n siv e e v id e n c e th a t th e re w a s p re -tria l p u b licity

re g a rd in g p re sc rip tio n m e d ica tio n in g e n e ra l; h o w e v e r, n o e v id e n c e h a s b e e n p re se n ted to lin k th e p u b licitysp e c if ica llyw ith B a y e r, B a y c o l o r th is p a rticu lar law su it. F u rth e r, th e re is

n o e v id e n c e p re se n ted to in d ica te to th is C o u rt th e e x ten t o f th e e f f e c t an yp re -tria l p u b licity

m ig h t h a v e h a d o n th e v e n ire . A s f a r a s w e c a n d isc e rn , th e re h a s b e e n n o trial s e tti n g in th is 4

ca se. A d eterm ination at th is p o int in the p roc ee d ing s that n o u n b iased H o lm es C o u n tyjury

c o u ld e v e r be se a ted w o u ld b e n o th in g b u t sp e c u latio n ; th u s, th e c irc u it co u rt w a s c o rre c t in deny i ng t he mot i on for change of venue beca us e i t w as pr emat ur e. T he t ran script of t he hear i ng on B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of venue s how s t hat 150 H ol m es C ount yci t i zens had b e e n s e le c te d to c o n s titu te th e v e n ir e f o r a tr ia l in th is c a s e . ¶13. W e have des cr i bed a pl ai nt i ff’ s abi l i t y t o choos e a for um as a “r i ght ”: “O f r i ght , t he pl ai nt i ff s el ect s among t he per m i s s i bl e venue s and hi s choi ce m us t be s us t ai ned unl es s i n t he end t her e i s no cr edi bl e evi dence s uppor t i ng t he fac t ual bas i s for t he cl ai m of venue
. ” Fli ght L i ne, I nc. v. T anksley , 608 So. 2d 1149, 1155 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng Mis s . P ow erC o. v. L uter ,

### 8

3 3 6 S o . 2 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 7 6 ))
. See a l so R e/ Max R eal

E s tate Part

ner s , I nc. v. L i ndsley , 8 4 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). O u r g e n e ra l v e n u e sta tu te w h ich w a s in e f f e c t w h e n su it

an d the m o ti o n fo r ch an g e o f v en u e w ere fil ed , M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -11 -3 (S u p p . 2 0 0 1 ), p rov ided fo r ve n u e in th e c o u n ty“w h ere a n o n -reside n t corp o rati o n ‘m ay b e f o u n d
. ’” B ay er ’ s pr i ncipa l pl ace of bus i nes s i s Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a. R eed’ s pr es cr i pt i on for B ay col w as fi l l ed i n H ol m es C ount y . V enue i n H ol m es C ount y i s t her efor e pr oper . W e fi nd t hat t he ci r cui t co ur t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of

venue. CO NC L US I ON ¶14. B eca us e B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of venue i s pr emat ur e and beca us e B ay er fai l ed t o pr es ent s uffi ci ent evi dence t o s uppor t i t s m o ti on, w e af fi r m t he ci r cui t cour t ’ s deni al of B ay er ’ s m ot i on for change of venue and r emand t hi s cas e t o t he C i r cui t C ourt o f H ol m es C ount yfor fur t her pr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w i t h t hi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 5
. AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONC UR. GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART A ND I N THE RESULT W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . DI AZ , J . , S PECI ALLY CO NCU RS W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N , J O I N E D B Y E A S L E Y A N D G R A V E S , J J . C O B B , P .J ., D I SSE N T S W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N , JO I N E D B Y D I C K I N SO N , J.

DI AZ , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶1 6
. I ag ree co m p let ely w it h the resu lt rea ch ed tod ay b y the m ajorit y o p inion
. H o w ev er, I a m c o m p e lled to w rite to a d d re ss o n e iss u e . T h e m a jo rityf in d s th a t th e H o lm e s C o u n ty

### 9

C i r cui t C our t r equi r ed an a ffi davi t fr om a r es i dent of H ol m es C ount yand t hus i m pos ed upon B a y e r a g re a ter b u rd e n th a n re q u ire d b y law o r pr e c e d e n t. A lth o u g h a rg u e d b yB a y e r, th is concl us i on i s not s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. ¶17. T he t r i al cour t di d i ndeed r efe r t o t he af fi davi t w hen initi all y deny i ng t he m ot i on. H ow ever , t he r ecor d r efl ect s t hat couns el for B ay er w as gi ven opportuni t y t o fur t her pr es ent hi s cas e t o t he cour t aft er t he i ni t i al deni al
. O nl yaft er t hat fur t her a rgum ent and fur t her del i ber at i on di d t he t r i al cour t agai n deny t he m ot i on for change of venue. E ven i f t he t r i al

cour t di d pr edi cat e i t s i ni t i al deni al of t he m ot i on on t he r equi r ement of an a ffi davi t , i t w ent furt her and reconsi dered rel evan t preceden t , such as B ai ley , and al l ow ed fur t her el abor at i on
on t he m oti on by bo t h p art i es. EA S LE Y AND GRA VE S , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. 

### C O B B , P R E S ID IN G J U S T IC E , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶18. T he m aj or i t y has l os t s i ght of t he for es t beca us e of t he t r ees . T hi s m at t er i s befor e us on i nt er l ocut or yappea l fr om t he deni al of B ay er ’ s Pet i t i on for C hange of V enue, fi l ed pur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 11- 11- 51. T he t r i al cour t cal l ed up t he pendi ng m ot i on, hear d ver y br i ef di s cus s i on fr om couns el for bot h s i des , and t hen deni ed t he Pet i t i on, w i t hout anypr ovi s i on for fur t her hear i ng. For t he maj or i t yt o s i m pl ys ayt he dec i s i on w as pr emat ur e, b e g s th e q u e stio n , an d d o e s n o t ad d re ss th e re a lit yo f w h a t is b e f

o re th is C o u rt ¶ 1 9
. If th e trial co u rt c o n d u c ts a p ro p e r h e a rin g o n th e v e n u e iss u e , p rio r to p ro c e e d in g to t r i al , no har m i s done. I f t he t r i al cour t cont i nues t o bel i eve, as w as cl ear l yi ndi cat ed fr om

### 10

th e sc a n t re c o rd b e f

o re u s, th a t th e d e n ial w a s a f in a l ru lin g a n d th e trial m u st g o f o rw a rd in H o lm es C o u n ty , then itis po ssible m u ch h arm w il l r esu lt
. I w o u ld rev erse the tri al co u rt ’s

or der of deni al and r emand for a pr oper hear i ng w i t h evi dence adduce d by bot h par t i es , as
re q u ir e d u n d e r M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -5 1
. 

### ¶20. Th e m ajority

corr ec tl y qu otes thef

i r s t por t i on of Mi s s . Code Ann. Se c t i on 11- 11- 51. It do es no t i nclude the r em ai nd er of that sam e s ec ti on wh ic h g oes on to state :
On r e a s onabl e not i c e i n wr i t i ng t o the a dve r s e party of the t i m e and pl a c e of m ak in g th e ap p licatio n , if m ad e inv acatio n , th e co u rt, i f i n t e rm t i m e , or the j u d g e inv acatio n , s hal l

he ar t hepa r t i es an d e

x am i net hee v i de nc ewh ic h e i th e r m a ya d d u c e, a n d m a ya w a rd a c h a n g eo

f v e n u eto s o m ec o n v e ni e nt c ount y whe re an i mpar t i al tr i al may be had, and, i f prac t i c able, i n whi c h t

he circu it co u rt m a

y n ext b e h eld

. If m ade in vacati on , the order shal l be i nd orse d on the pe t i t i on and di r e c t e d t o the c l e rk, who s ha l l fi l e the s am e wi th the p ap ers inth e su it. (Em ph as is added). O n A ugus t 23, 2004, B ay er fi l ed i t s pet i t i on for change of venue pur s uant t o t he s t at ut e, s t at i ng, i n es s ence , t hat i t had good rea so n to be l i eve, and di d bel i eve, t hat p re ju d ice e x ists in th e p u b lic m in d , su c h th a t itc o u ld n o t o b tain a f a ir a n d im p a rtial tria l in Ho l me s Co u n t y . Re e d r e c e i v e d n o t i c e , a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e t i t f o r h e a r i n g , a l o n g wi t h s o me 18 ot her pendi ng m ot i ons fr om bot h R eed and B ay er . I t w as hear d on Sept ember 21, 2004. ¶21. A t t hat hear i ng, t he cha nge of ve nue mot i on w as t he s econd m ot i on cal l ed. W i t hout hear i ng ar gum ent , or any ot her di s cus s i on, t he t r i al cour t s i m pl y s t at ed t hat i t had “r ead t he

m o tio n , as w e ll as th e r e s p o n s e , a n d th a t m o tio n is d e n ied .” T h e re is a b so lu tely n o th in g in t he r ecor d t o i ndi cat e, as t he m aj or i t y s ugges t s , t hat t her e w as any t hi ng fur t her t o be hea r d on

### 11

th is iss u e a t a la ter tim e . R e a li z in g th is, B a y e r’s a tto rn e ya sk e d to “ a d d re ss th e c o u rt a

m i nut e” a nd w ent on t o des cr i be seve r al fac t s w hi ch for m ed t he bas i s for t he bel i ef t hat B ay er
cou l d n ot get a fai r t ri al , i ncludi ng t hat t w o of t he 15 0 p ers on ven i re w ere pl ai nti ffs against B ay er . H e t hen as ked t he t r i al cour t t o r econs i der i t s deni al of t he change of venue. A t t hat p o i n t Re e d ’ s c o u n s e l p r o p o s e d a s o l u t i o n t o t h a t s p e c i f i c g r o u n d : n a me l y , j u s t t e l l t h o s e t wo

“ th a t th e re is n o n e e d f

o r t h e m to p a rt ic ip a te to th e p o in t o f s h o w in g u p a t th e c o u rt h o u s e .” A ft er obt ai ni ng t he nam es of t he t w o, t he t r i al cour t announce d: “C our t has r econs i der ed and t he mot i on for ch an g e o f v en ue i s deni ed. ” A gai n, t her e w as no i ndi cat i on t hat any t hi ng fur t her w oul d be hea r d on t hat i s s ue, at t hat t i m e, or at a l at er dat e. T he or der deny i ng change

o f v en u e w as e n tered o n the s am e d ay , an d B ay er ti m elyfile d its P e tit ion fo r Interl o cu tory A p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt o n O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4
. 

### ¶2 2
. It m ay

w ell b e th at, b ased o n p ro p er rev iew o f all ev id en ce, a ch an g e o f v enu e sh o u ld b e d en ied . H o w ev er, v iew in g th e reco rdb ef o re u s inth e lig h t o f

p reced en t an dap p licab le
s t at ut ory pr ovi s i ons , i t

i s c l e ar the de cisio n to g rant

or de ny the m ot i on i s s quar e l y

the resp o n sib ility

o f th e trial co u rt, w h ichw as p ro cedu rally in co rr e c t a n d h asty

inm ak in g its de c i s i on. Be c aus e the i na ppr opr i at e pr oc e dur a l s t andar d wa s a ppl i e d, I woul d r e ve r s e and
rem an dth is case to th e trial co u rt. ¶ 23. The onl y

s worn doc um e nt s att a c he d t o the m ot i on we r e part of Re e d’ s de pos i t i on and
an a ffi davi t

fro m B ay e r ’ s c ouns e l , Robe rt J ohns on. The r e m a i ni ng m at e r i a l s c ons i s t e d of
ne ws pa pe r art i c l e s , a ds and i nt e rne t pr i nt out s . I t i s c l e ar fr om the tr ans c r i pt of the he ar i ng,

### 12

and ar e vi e w of the i t e m s att a c he d t o Baye r ’ s pe t i t i on, th e trial c ourt di d not r e a c h the
s ubs t anc e of the pe t i t i on but r athe r de a l t wi th i t s umm ar i l y

an d d idnot

c om pl y wi th the statu to ry requ irem en ts. ¶24. Reading the plai n lang uage of the change of venu e st at ute, it is cl ea r th e part ie s are enti tl ed to be heard and their evidence e xam ined. Bas ed on m y re view of

the r ec ord that
s i m pl y di d not ha ppe n. The tr i a l c ourt

de c i de d the i s s ue i n ha s t e and wi thout a ffordi ng
coun se l fo r ei ther si de the op po rt un it y to pres ent evidence, via te st im on y o r o ther wise , suff ic ie nt to supp ort their

m otion o r o pp ose cou nsel op po si te
. In fact , B ayer ’s attorney , in h ad to inte rr up t t he tr ia l c ou rt

as the next m atte r was being calle d, in order t o p re se nt fu rther
ev id en ce ab o u t p o ssib ly

tain tedj u ro rs. S u ch s u mm ary d isp o sitio no f

m o tio n s is n o t in k eep in g w ithth e statu to ry requ irem en ts. ¶25. When the tr ia l court denied the peti ti on , it prov ided absolute ly no re as on ing o ther than th e a f f i d av i t r e qu i r e m e n t , w h i c h w a s ane rr o n e o u s r e a s o n . I nmy v i e w , i f th i s w a s m e r e l y a tem p o r a ry d e c i s i o n , th e trial co u rt w o u ldan dsh o u ldh av e so in d icated . U n f o rtu n ately , it
a p p e ar s th at

s u c hn o n - s ub s t an t i v e o r d e r s ar e b e c o mi n g th e n o rm, b u t s u c hs h o rt

c u t i nt i me oft e n r e s ul t s i n as hort

c ut l e a di ng t o i njus t i c e . Ha d the tr i a l c ourt s a i d i t de ni e d the pe t i t i on b ecau s e i t

wa s pr e m at

ur e , that woul d have pr e ve nt e d thi s i nt e r l oc ut ory a ppe a l
. I r em ain
unc onvi nc e d that

the tr i a l c ourt m e ant any thi ng othe r

than ape rm ane nt , i t
- i s - a l l

- ove r r ul i ng to d en y th e ch an g e o f

v enu e.T he H o lm e s C o u n ty He r a ld

i s a w eekl ynew s paperw hi ch s er ves L exi ngt on and 5 H o lm e s C o u n ty. A lar g e n u m b e r o f

th e a tto rn e ya d v e rtise m e n ts w e re in th e f o rm o f p u b lic h e a lth 6 not i ces or cl ai m ed t o pr ovi de val uabl e publ i c heal t h i nfor m at i on. Fur t her , a gr eatm anyof t hem l i s t ed a w i de var i et ydr ugs , s y m pt om s and i nj ur i es w i t h no connec t i on bet w een w hi ch dr ugs caus ed w hi ch s y m pt om s or i nj ur i es . Som e of t hes e at t or neyadver t i s ement s m ent i oned p re v io u s m u lti m ill io n d o llar se ttl e m e n ts an d im p licitly in d ica ted th a t th e sa m e w a s p o ss ib le f o r t h e m . Sever al of t he at t or neyadver t i s ement s i ndi cat ed t hat B ay col w as r emoved fr om t he 7 m ar ket by t he F D A
. H ow ever , i n actual i t yB ay col w as vol unt ar i l yr emoved fr om t he mar ket b yB a y e r. 

### 13 ¶26. Fo r the pu rposes of ai ding in appell at e re view, part ie s m ust pres ent a com

plet e r ec ord
an d trial co u rts sh o u ld p ro v id e su f f icien t reaso n in g b eh in d th eir ru lin g s. B o ilerp late d en ials t e l l nothi ng of the r at i ona l e be hi nd the tr i a l c ourt ’ s de c i s i on, and thi s Court i s l e ft wi th nothi ng bu t s peculati on as to wh y the tri al court r

uled the w ay it did. We urge the tri al bench andbar t o, at am i ni m um , pr ovi de s om e i ns i ght i nt o the r at i ona l e on whi c h the r ul i ng i s ba s e d. ¶ 27. W i th onl y the r e c or d whi c h i s be for e us , i t i s i m pos s ib le t o de t e rm i ne , a s a m att e r of law, the proper dis po si ti on of Bayer ’s m otion. Bayer

prov ided this Co urt with no le ss than 1 4 0 atto rn ey

adv e rt i s e me n t s s o l i c i t i n g p o t e n t i a l p l a i n t i f f s f o r aw i d e v ar i e ty

o f p r o du c t liab ility lawsuits in the H

o lm es Co u n ty H

era ld from 2 00 1-20 03
. Severa l of the attorney 5 

### advert is em ents could m is le ad the re ader
. So m e c on ta ined st at em ents wh ic h w er e i nacc urat e, 6


### ac cording to the re cord, i ncluding se vera l t hat s olic it ed plai ntiffs fo r Baycol. Th is nu m ber 7 

### doe s not i nc l ude t e l e vi s i on and r a di o a dve rt i s e m e nt s s ol i c i t i ng pl a i nt i ffs
. I t a l s o doe s not i nc l ude the s e r i e s of t own ha l l m e e t i ngs s pons or e d by att orne y s that we re h eldth r oughout

### 14

Hol m e s County

whe r e r e s i de nt s we r e e duc at e d a s t o the s i de

- e ffe c t s of di ffe r e nt pr e s c r i pt i on
m ed icatio n s b y

lo cal p h y sician s an d later recru ited as p lain tif f s b y th e sp o n so rin g atto rn ey s. Ho wever, no ne of

the pre tr ia l pub li ci ty

deal t s peci fica ll y

with Reed’s ca se agai nst Bayer . ¶ 28. Baye r

poi nt s out

that i n the s i x ye ar s pr i or to th e p resen t laws ui t , the r e we r e 135 pr oduc t l i abi l i ty l aws ui t s fi l e d i n Hol m e s County , wi th ove r 2, 200 nam e d pl a i nt i ffs
. As of the 2000 c e ns us the r e we r e fe we r than 22, 000 pe opl e i n Hol m e s County , onl y two- thi r ds of whom
we r e e l i gi bl e for

jury duty . Obvi ous l y , gi ve n thi s St at e ’ s pr e vi ous l y l i be r a l joi nde r r ul e s , not all o f th e 2 ,2 0 0 p lain tif

f s w ere H o lm es C o u n ty

resid en ts an dev enam o n g th o se w h o w ere, it is p o ssib le th at th ere w ere rep eat p lain tif f s am o n g th em . It also g o es w ith o u t sayin g th at all th ese law su its w ere n o t f

iledag ain st B ayer. ¶2 9
. A s a r e s u l t o f p r e-trial p ub licity an dsp ecif

ically atto rn ey adv ertisem en ts th ere is i nc or r e c t or pot e nt i a l l y

mislead in g in f

o rm atio nreg ard in g a v ariety o f p rescrip tio nm ed icatio ns i n pl ay i n Hol m e s County . Howe ve r , the r e i s i ns uffi c i e nt e vi de nc e t o dr aw any c onc l us i ons
on substantive groun ds. Th e evidence pres ente d by Bayer could lea d to the as s umpt i on that it m ight no t r ec ei ve a fai r tri al in Ho lm es Co un ty beca use of the general atmosph ere of the venire . How ever , that i s not the stand ar d the courts shou ld em ploy . Bayer

has not prov ided
e v i d e n c e th at

th e p ub l i c i ty p r e s e n t

i nth e c o mm

u n i ty, w h e th e r

v i an e w s p a

p e r s , att o rn e yp ro p elledg o ssip o r o th erw ise, sp ecifica llytarg etedth e p resen t litig atio n .

### 15

¶30. It is the m ov ant’ s bu rden to pres ent the tr ia l court with suff ic ie nt evidence to supp ort the m ot i on. That

s a i d, the he ar i ng of s uc h e vi de nc e and the r e a s oni ng of i t s e ns ui ng de c i s i on i s the r e s pons i bi l i ty

of the tr i a l c ourt
. I n thi s c a s e ne i the r r e s pons i bi l i ty

ha s be e n ful fi l l e d. ¶ 31
. In my vi e w, the tr i a l c ourt e rr e d wh e n i t de ni e d the Pe t i t i on fo r Change of Venu e,
w ith o u t allo w in g th e p arties to ad du ce ev id en ce as requ iredb y S ect io n1 1 -1 1 -5 1 . I w o u ld
r e ve r s e and r e m and for

apr ope r he ar i ng on the pe t i t i on. ¶3 2
. F o r th ese reaso n s, I resp ectf u lly d issen t. DI CKI NS ON, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.