UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Karen L. Bartlett

v. Civil No. 08-cv-358-JL

Opinion No. 2010 DNH 131

Mutual Pharmaceutical

Company, Inc.

SUMMARY ORDER

Mutual has moved in limine to exclude various types of

evidence from the upcoming trial. See L.R. 16.2(b)(3). This

court will address each of its motions in turn.

Motion #1: Adverse event reports

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence of adverse drug event

reports received by the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) or the

World Health Organization (“WHO”), arguing that such reports are

hearsay and that Bartlett has not demonstrated that the

underlying cases involved sufficiently similar circumstances. 

This motion is granted in part. The reports are indeed hearsay

“if offered to prove the truth of the matter[s] asserted” in

them, i.e., that Sulindac caused SJS/TEN in a particular case. 

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Bartlett has not argued that they fall

within any hearsay exception. Thus, the reports may not be

offered for that purpose.

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 27
The reports are not hearsay, though, if offered to prove

that the FDA was on notice of Sulindac’s safety risks, or that

Mutual should have been on notice of such risks. See Kelley v. 1

Airborne Freight Corp., 140 F.3d 335, 346 (1st Cir. 1998); Golod

v. Hoffman La Roche, 964 F. Supp. 841, 855 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)

(adverse event “reports are not hearsay, because they are offered

not as proof of the fact that [the drug] caused the reported

blindness, but as evidence that [the defendant] was on notice of

potentially serious optical side effects”). If Bartlett seeks to

admit them for that purpose, Mutual may request a limiting

instruction and/or seek other limits on their use (e.g., to

require redactions, or allow only summaries rather than the

reports themselves) to prevent any unfair prejudice. See Fed. R.

Evid. 403.

This court disagrees, however, with Mutual’s argument that

the underlying cases need to be similar to this case “in all

respects” for the reports to be admitted on the issue of notice. 

They need only be “substantially similar.” Moulton v. Rival Co.,

116 F.3d 22, 26-27 (1st Cir. 1997); McKinnon v. Skil Corp., 638

This court recently ordered the parties to brief the issue 1

of whether Bartlett has trialworthy claims for negligence or

enhanced compensatory damages and, if not, whether evidence of

Mutual’s alleged fault is admissible to support her claim for

strict liability (see doc. 281). The court expresses no opinion

on those issues here, other than to note that any pre-trial

evidentiary rulings that reject challenges to evidence of

Mutual’s fault may need to be revisited after such briefing.

2

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 27
F.2d 270, 277 (1st Cir. 1981). Here, each of the reports

concerns a patient who allegedly suffered SJS/TEN after taking

Sulindac. That is a sufficient similarity to support their

admission, at least for notice purposes. See Golod, 964 F. Supp.

at 855.

Finally, Bartlett’s experts may testify based on the reports

if, and to the extent that, they are “reasonably relied upon by

experts in the particular field,” notwithstanding any hearsay

problems. Fed. R. Evid. 703; see also In re Fosamax Prods. Liab.

Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (allowing

experts to testify based on such reports in another case

involving a rare disease, but noting a split of authority on that

issue). The reports themselves “need not be admissible in order

for the [expert] opinion or inference to be admitted.” Fed. R.

Evid. 703. That does not mean, however, that Bartlett’s experts

may recite the contents of the reports or share copies with the

jury. Id.

Motion #2: Other litigation

Mutual seeks to preclude references to other litigation

involving Sulindac or other NSAIDs. Since Bartlett has no

objection to this motion, it is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-

403; Bartlett v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 2010 DNH 125, 9 (granting a

3

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 27
similar motion in limine filed by Bartlett). This ruling does

not restrict either party from cross-examining each other’s

expert witnesses about their involvement in other cases, even if

those cases involved Sulindac or other NSAIDs.

Motion #3: FDA’s resources

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence of the FDA’s alleged lack

of resources and inability to monitor the safety of all drugs,

arguing that such evidence has no probative value and is unfairly

prejudicial. This motion is denied. Such evidence is relevant

in determining how much weight, if any, should be given to the

FDA’s approval of Sulindac as safe and effective for its directed

uses, and the FDA’s approval of the drug’s warning. See Fed. R.

Evid. 401, 402. As a counterpoint to Mutual’s evidence of those

FDA approvals, the evidence is not unfairly prejudicial. See

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Bartlett is reminded, however, that her use

of such evidence may “open the door” to contrary evidence from

Mutual about the FDA’s resources and abilities. See Bartlett,

2010 DNH 125, at 10.

Motion #4: Subsequent label changes 

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence of certain changes to

Sulindac’s warning label that occurred after Bartlett’s

4

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 27
prescription, arguing that they are inadmissible as “subsequent

remedial measures,” see Fed. R. Evid. 407, and are unfairly

prejudicial, see Fed. R. Evid. 403. The label changes resulted

from a citizen’s petition filed with the FDA by a group of

doctors (including two of Bartlett’s experts) in 2005. Although

the petition related specifically to the drug ibuprofen and its

risk of SJS/TEN, the FDA responded by requiring the manufacturers

of all NSAIDs, including Sulindac, to insert a specific SJS/TEN

warning into their drug labels. See Bartlett v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,

2010 DNH 112, 15 n.6 (quoting the warning).

Many courts have deemed evidence of post-prescription label

changes inadmissible as “subsequent remedial measures” under Rule

407. See, e.g., Stahl v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 283 F.3d 254,

270-72 (5th Cir. 2002); DeLuryea v. Winthrop Labs., 697 F.2d 227,

229 (8th Cir. 1983); Werner v. Upjohn Co., 628 F.2d 848, 853 (4th

Cir. 1980). This case is different, though, because the changes

were mandated by the FDA for an entire class of drugs, not

implemented by Mutual as a remedial measure specific to Sulindac. 

“Rule 407 applies only to subsequent remedial measures taken

voluntarily by the defendant,” Raymond v. Raymond Corp., 938 F.2d

1518, 1524 (1st Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original), and thus does

not apply to broader government-mandated measures of this sort. 

See, e.g., 2 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 801.30[4], at 801-55

(2d ed. 1997) (citing Sabel v. Mead Johnson & Co., 737 F. Supp.

5

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 27
135, 141 (D. Mass. 1990), which admitted FDA letter recommending

that manufacturer strengthen its drug label).

Since Rule 407 presents no barrier to admission of the postprescription label changes, this court “must consider under Rule

403 whether [their] probative value is outweighed by the danger

of unfair prejudice and confusion.” Lindsay v. Ortho Pharm.

Corp., 637 F.2d 87, 94 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Raymond, 938 F.2d

at 1524. Of course, such changes can be highly probative of the

label’s adequacy, in that they may indicate an inaccuracy or

omission in the prior label. But the danger is that they could

be valued too highly by the jury, i.e., viewed as an implicit

admission of inadequacy by the manufacturer. Some courts have

excluded evidence of label changes on that basis. See, e.g.,

Gray v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 82 Fed. Appx. 639, 646 (10th Cir.

2003); Lindsay, 637 F.2d at 94.

Again, however, this case is different. There is little

risk here that the jury will view the label changes as an

admission of inadequacy by Mutual, because they were mandated by

the FDA and applied to all NSAIDs, not just Sulindac. Indeed,

the changes may actually support Mutual’s case as much as or more

than Bartlett’s, because the use of a class-wide warning “implies

that all NSAIDs have a similar risk of SJS/TEN,” Bartlett, 2010

DNH 112, at 15 n.6, and thus undermines Bartlett’s claim that

Sulindac has or may have a greater risk than other NSAIDs and

6

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 6 of 27
that its warning should have said so. Moreover, Mutual has

repeatedly argued that the FDA essentially “adopted” the language

from Sulindac’s label, since it was the strongest of any NSAID’s,

and that the changes did not “materially improve” the prior

warning (see, e.g., doc. 149, at 26).

Given that Mutual intends to use the FDA’s approval of

Sulindac’s label as evidence of the label’s adequacy (which is an

element of Mutual’s “comment k” defense, see Bartlett, 2010 DNH

112, at 25-26 (discussing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A,

cmt. k (1965))), this court does not consider it unfairly

prejudicial for Bartlett to counter with evidence that the FDA

changed that label less than two years later, especially to the

extent that the FDA relied on information available to Mutual at

the time of Bartlett’s prescription. One might even argue that

it would be unfairly prejudicial to prevent Bartlett from

responding in kind. In any event, “Rule 403 tilts the balance in

favor of admission” in close cases. United States v. Whitney,

524 F.3d 134, 141 (1st Cir. 2008). Mutual’s request to exclude

evidence of the label changes is therefore denied.2

Either party may, however, request a limiting instruction 2

that neither the FDA’s approval of the label, nor the fact that

it required changes, is controlling on the issue of the label’s

adequacy.

7

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 7 of 27
Motion #5: Surveillance firm

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence that after Bartlett’s

injuries it retained an outside firm to survey the medical

literature for safety information relating to Sulindac and other

drugs it manufactures. Mutual argues that such evidence is

inadmissible as a subsequent remedial measure. See Fed. R. Evid.

407. Bartlett argues, in response, that such evidence is

relevant to whether the outside firm should have been retained

earlier. But Rule 407 makes clear that subsequent remedial

measures are “not admissible to prove negligence [or] culpable

conduct.” Mutual’s motion is therefore granted.

Motion #6: Citizen’s petition by Bartlett’s experts

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence of the citizen’s petition,

discussed above in connection with motion #4, that resulted in

post-prescription changes to Sulindac’s label. This motion is

denied, for the same reasons discussed above. One additional

consideration here is that the petition’s authors included two of

Bartlett’s experts. It is not entirely clear whether that

authorship will operate to the benefit or detriment of either

party. Nevertheless, Mutual may request a limiting instruction

and/or seek other limits on the use of such evidence (e.g.,

8

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 8 of 27
redaction) to prevent any unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 3

403. 

Motion #7: Citizen’s petition by Mutual

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to a citizen’s

petition that it filed with the FDA in 2008 requesting permission

to manufacture and sell Sulindac in capsule form (as opposed to

tablets). This motion is granted in part. The citizen’s

petition has no relevance as substantive evidence, because it

does not involve the type of safety issues raised by Bartlett’s

defective design claims or the type of labeling issues raised by

Mutual’s “comment k” defense. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. The

petition may, however, have some bearing on the credibility of

former FDA official and defense witness Robert Pollack, who

signed it on Mutual’s behalf. See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).

Motion #8: Manufacturing and testing

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to its manufacturing

processes for Sulindac, the possibility of an alternative

formulation of the drug, or product testing. This motion is

granted. Bartlett concedes that she is no longer claiming that

This court expresses no opinion on the hearsay arguments 3

raised in Mutual’s reply brief. Mutual may raise those

objections at trial.

9

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 9 of 27
Sulindac had a manufacturing defect, or that Mutual could or

should have formulated the drug differently, so evidence on those

points is no longer relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. 

Mutual may, however, present evidence that Sulindac could not

have been formulated differently, which is an element that it

must prove to establish its “comment k” defense. See Bartlett,

2010 DNH 122, at 25-26. 

As for product testing, Bartlett claims she is still

pursuing a failure-to-test theory. But the basis for that theory

is unclear. In her objection, Bartlett argues that Mutual “had

an obligation to take action to ensure it was selling a safe

drug” and that “skin patch testing or lymphocyte toxicity array

tests to pre-challenge blood before anyone got this NSAID would

have likely saved [her] eyes.” But this court cannot find any

support for that theory in her expert reports (or, for that

matter, in the law). Without expert testimony, references to 4

such testing would only confuse or mislead the jury. See Fed. R.

Evid. 403.

This is essentially just another “non-label” failure-to- 4

warn theory, in that it suggests Mutual should have warned

doctors and patients of the need for such testing. See Bartlett,

2010 DNH 112, at 21-22 (granting summary judgment on Bartlett’s

failure-to-warn claims and rejecting as speculative the similar

theory “that Mutual should have launched an educational campaign

to promote early monitoring of Sulindac’s side effects”).

10

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 10 of 27
Motions #9: Unilateral label changes

Mutual seeks to preclude any suggestion that it had the

right to strengthen Sulindac’s safety warning unilaterally, which

it argues is contrary to federal law. But this court has already

ruled, as a matter of federal law, that Mutual did have that

right. See Bartlett, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 279; Bartlett, 2010 DNH

112, at 38-41. The motion is therefore denied as moot. The

court reiterates, however, that neither party may offer testimony

on legal issues that fall within the province of the court,

including this one. See Bartlett, 2010 DNH 123, at 5-6, 29-30.

Motion #10: Hypothetical FDA action

Mutual seeks to preclude any assertion that the FDA would

have changed Sulindac’s label or withdrawn it from the market if

Mutual had given it certain information. This motion is granted,

as any such assertion would be speculative and unfairly

prejudicial for the reasons explained in this court’s prior

rulings. See Bartlett, 2010 DNH 123, at 6-7; docs. no. 271, 273;

see also Fed. R. Evid. 602 (permissible basis for fact witness

testimony), 701 (permissible basis for lay opinion testimony),

and 703 (permissible basis for expert testimony).

Indeed, such an assertion appears to be contrary to what has

actually happened. Sulindac remains on the market today with

11

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 11 of 27
essentially the same label (except for the changes discussed in

connection with motion #4, supra), even though the FDA has long

been aware of the adverse event data and medical literature upon

which Bartlett relies. See, e.g., Letter from Dr. Steven Galson,

Director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation & Research, to

Bartlett’s expert Dr. Roger Salisbury (June 22, 2006), doc. no.

215-4, at 2.

Motions #11 and 23: Legal testimony

Mutual seeks to preclude Bartlett from offering any

testimony that interprets the law or expresses an opinion about

whether Mutual violated it. This motion is granted, for reasons

explained in this court’s ruling on the parties’ expert motions.

See Bartlett, 2010 DNH 123, at 29-30.

Motions #12 to #15: Adequacy of label

Mutual seeks to preclude any testimony about the adequacy of

Sulindac’s warning label because there is no evidence that

Bartlett or her prescribing doctor read or relied upon it. While

that is true, and indeed is why this court granted summary

judgment on Bartlett’s failure-to-warn claims, see Bartlett, 2010

DNH 112, 13-18, the adequacy of the label remains relevant to

this case in at least one respect, which is that Mutual’s

12

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 12 of 27
“comment k” defense depends on it. See id. at 26. Mutual has 5

not disclaimed that defense; rather, it seems to have filed this

motion on the erroneous assumption that the lack of reliance on

Sulindac’s label would defeat all of Bartlett’s claims, rendering

any defenses moot. Since that is not so, and since the label’s

adequacy remains at issue, Mutual’s request to exclude all

testimony on that subject is denied.

Mutual also seeks to preclude any suggestion that the

Sulindac label failed to mention SJS/TEN in its “Warnings”

section, despite mentioning it in the “Adverse Reactions”

section. See id. at 4-5. Mutual argues that such a suggestion

conflicts with the well-established rule that a drug label must

be “read as a whole” to determine its adequacy. Id. at 10

(quoting Guevara v. Dorsey Labs., 845 F.2d 364, 366 (1st Cir.

1988)). This request, too, is denied. As explained in this

court’s summary judgment ruling, a warning can be inadequate not

Whether the label is also relevant to Bartlett’s prima 5

facie case is less clear. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has

listed “the presence and efficacy of a warning” as one of “many

possible factors” that “a jury must evaluate” in determining

whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. See Vautour v. Body

Masters Sports Indus., Inc., 147 N.H. 150, 154 (2001). But it

has also said that “design defect and failure to warn claims are

separate,” with each providing an independent basis for strict

products liability. LeBlanc v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 141 N.H.

579, 586 (1997). The question, then, is whether the label’s

adequacy can be considered in evaluating a design defect claim

where, as here, the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim fails for

lack of causation. Since the parties have not briefed that

issue, the court will not resolve it now.

13

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 13 of 27
only “in factual content,” but also “in expression of the facts,

or in the method by which it is conveyed.” Id. at 8-9 (quoting

Brochu v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 642 F.2d 652, 657 (1st Cir. 1981)). 

On this record, there is a trialworthy question as to whether

Sulindac’s label should have warned of SJS/TEN more clearly and

prominently, including in its “Warnings” section. Id. at 11. 

Both parties may present evidence on that issue.

Finally, Mutual seeks to preclude any suggestion that the

Sulindac label failed to mention the potential complications of

SJS/TEN (e.g., blindness, coma), arguing that a reasonable doctor

would have known what that disease can entail. This request is

denied for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph. 

Mutual is free to present expert testimony regarding what a

reasonable doctor would have known about SJS/TEN, see Bartlett,

2010 DNH 123, at 24-25, and to argue that Sulindac’s label was

sufficiently detailed in light of that knowledge, but this court

will not prohibit Bartlett from suggesting that the label should

have been more detailed.

Motion #16: Sulindac’s relative risk

Mutual seeks to preclude any suggestion that Sulindac

carries a higher risk of SJS/TEN than other NSAIDs or other

drugs, which it claims cannot be determined from the limited data

14

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 14 of 27
available. This motion is denied as moot. The court already

addressed this issue in its recent ruling on the parties’ expert

motions. See id. at 35 (rejecting Mutual’s request for

categorical exclusion of such testimony). Any objections that

Mutual may have to specific testimony in this area will be

considered at trial.

Motion #17: Bactrim

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence about Bactrim, another drug

manufactured by Mutual that has been linked to SJS/TEN, arguing

that such evidence is not relevant and is unfairly prejudicial. 

This motion is also denied as moot. The court addressed this

issue, too, in its recent ruling on the parties’ expert motions. 

See id. at 35-36 (rejecting Mutual’s request to categorically

exclude testimony about Bactrim by one of Bartlett’s experts).6

Any objections that Mutual may have to specific Bactrim evidence

will be considered at trial.

But see note 1, supra (reserving judgment on whether 6

Bartlett has trialworthy claims for negligence or enhanced

compensatory damages and, if not, whether she can present

evidence of Mutual’s alleged fault).

15

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 15 of 27
Motion #18: Subsequent medical literature

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to medical literature

or FDA advisory committee documents that post-date Bartlett’s

prescription, arguing that such evidence is not relevant and is

unfairly prejudicial. This motion is granted in part. Bartlett

may not use post-prescription materials to prove notice to Mutual

or the FDA, since that is a chronological impossibility. See

Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. The evidence may, however, be relevant

for other purposes, and even if it constitutes hearsay, see Fed. 7

R. Evid. 801(c), it may be a permissible basis for expert

For example, although Bartlett must show “that [Sulindac’s] 7

unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the product was

purchased,” Thibault v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 N.H. 802, 809

(1978), more recent safety information may shed light on the

risk-utility analysis, since (based on the record presently

before the court) Sulindac’s design has not changed in the

intervening period, nor have the designs of various alternative

drugs, or the available technology. See, e.g., Brooks v. Beech

Aircraft Corp., 902 P.2d 54, 63 (N.M. 1995) (unreasonable

dangerousness “may be measured not only by the information

available to the manufacturer at the time of design, but also by

the information available to the trier of fact at the time of

trial,” at least in the absence of “unknowable design

considerations”); Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., 709 P.2d 876, 880

(Ariz. 1985) (same). 

While this court is aware of the intense scholarly debate

over the use of post-purchase information as evidence in strict

liability cases based on defective design, see 2 Louis R. Frumer

& Melvin I. Friedman, Products Liability § 11.03[4][a], 11-88 to

11-89 (2010), such evidence is less concerning where, as here,

the post-purchase information does not stray far afield from the

pre-purchase information, either in time or content. The court

notes, however, that limits may be imposed on such evidence at

trial to prevent unfair prejudice, undue delay, or waste of time. 

See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

16

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 16 of 27
testimony, see Fed. R. Evid. 703. This court cannot make those

determinations in the abstract, without reference to particular

evidence. The remainder of Mutual’s motion is therefore denied

without prejudice to any objections that Mutual may raise at

trial.

Motion #19: Prior medical literature

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence of an article regarding the

link between NSAIDs and SJS/TEN, which it argues is hearsay and

unreliable. See Maja Mockenhaupt et al., The Risk of SJS and TEN

Associated with NSAIDs: A Multinational Perspective, 30 Journal

of Rheumatology 2234-2240 (Oct. 2003). This motion is granted in

part. The article is indeed hearsay “if offered to prove the

truth of the matter[s] asserted” therein, see Fed. R. Evid.

801(c), and thus may not be offered for that purpose, except to

the extent permitted by the “learned treatise” exception to the

hearsay rule, see Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) (allowing limited use of

such articles in cross-examination of expert witnesses), should

Bartlett lay the appropriate foundation.

The article may, however, be offered to prove notice. See 8

Kelley, 140 F.3d at 346. Moreover, Bartlett’s experts may

But see note 1, supra (reserving judgment on whether 8

Bartlett has trialworthy claims for negligence or enhanced

compensatory damages and, if not, whether she can present

evidence of Mutual’s alleged fault).

17

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 17 of 27
testify based on the article, even if it is hearsay, since such

articles are “reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular

field.” Fed. R. Evid. 703. The article itself “need not be

admissible in order for the [expert] opinion or inference to be

admitted.” Id. Mutual’s argument that the article is unreliable

is belied by the fact that it was published in a prominent, peerreviewed medical journal and that Mutual’s own expert, Dr. Robert

Stern, is one of the report’s authors.9

Motion #20: FDA reporting

Mutual seeks to exclude evidence that it failed to report to

the FDA information from the medical literature regarding

Sulindac’s safety risks, arguing that it had no duty to do so and

that such evidence therefore has no probative value and is

unfairly prejudicial. This motion is denied. As explained in

this court’s summary judgment ruling, generic drug manufacturers

are required by FDA regulations to survey the medical literature

for adverse drug events associated with their drugs and to report

such information to the FDA. See Bartlett, 2010 DNH 112, at 30-

This court expresses no opinion on whether the recently 9

discovered draft of the article (see doc. 230-2) is sufficiently

reliable to satisfy Rule 703. Since it was never published, and

there is no indication (in the current record, anyway) that the

FDA or Mutual was or should have been aware of it at the time of

Bartlett’s prescription, that draft clearly cannot be admitted to

show notice.

18

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 18 of 27
32 (interpreting 21 C.F.R. § 314.80(b)-(c)). While not

establishing negligence per se, Mutual’s failure to comply with

those requirements is relevant evidence of negligence. See id. 10

at 35. 

Motion #21: Patient medication guide

Mutual seeks to preclude any suggestion that it should have

created a patient medication guide for Sulindac. This motion is

granted. As explained in this court’s summary judgment ruling,

“a manufacturer’s duty [under New Hampshire law] to warn of a

drug’s safety risks requires that the physician, not the patient,

be warned.” Bartlett, 2010 DNH 112, at 20. References to a

patient medication guide, because they would imply a duty to warn

the patient, would be confusing to the jury and unfairly

prejudicial to Mutual. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Motion #22: Market withdrawal

Mutual seeks to preclude any suggestion that Sulindac should

have been withdrawn from the market, arguing that withdrawal is

not required under New Hampshire law (even for unreasonably

But see note 1, supra (reserving judgment on whether 10

Bartlett has trialworthy claims for negligence or enhanced

compensatory damages and, if not, whether she can present

evidence of Mutual’s alleged fault).

19

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 19 of 27
dangerous products) and that any such suggestion would be

unfairly prejudicial. But such a suggestion is implicit in every

products liability case based on defective design, because the

plaintiff must prove that the product’s risks outweigh its

benefits. Cf., e.g., Thibault, 118 N.H. at 807 (“a finding of

liability for defective design could result in the removal of an

entire product line from the market”). Thus, Mutual’s claim of

unfair prejudice is overstated.

Of course, Bartlett may not introduce evidence of what the

law requires (if she even disagrees with Mutual on that point,

which is unclear from her objection). To that extent, this

motion is granted. See Bartlett, 2010 DNH 123, at 29-30; Fed. R.

Evid. 403. Bartlett may, however, introduce evidence of industry

practice, including the fact that other drugs linked to SJS/TEN

have been withdrawn from the market, which is relevant to whether

Sulindac was an unreasonably dangerous product. See Thibault,

118 N.H. at 814 (allowing evidence of industry practice to be

admitted in a defective design case); see also Fed. R. Evid. 401,

402. To shed light on that evidence, she may also introduce

expert testimony comparing Sulindac to those other drugs. The

probative value of such evidence outweighs any prejudice to

Mutual. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

This court recognizes that there may be some tension between

that evidence and what strict products liability requires, which

20

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 20 of 27
is that manufacturers compensate consumers for the damage caused

by unreasonably dangerous products, not necessarily that they

remove such products from the market. See 5 Frumer & Friedman,

supra, § 57.01[4], at 57-9 (noting that “almost all of the

opinions which have addressed the issue have found that there is

no common law duty to recall or retrofit” unreasonably dangerous

products). Because of that tension, the court will entertain

requests from Mutual for limiting instructions when such evidence

is presented at trial and/or appropriate jury instructions at the

close of the case.

 

Motion #24: Post-traumatic stress disorder

Mutual seeks to preclude psychologist Richard Goldberg from

testifying that Bartlett had post-traumatic stress disorder,

arguing that a psychologist is not qualified to make such a

diagnosis under New Hampshire law. But the “question of whether

expert testimony should be admitted or excluded” in a federal

case “is a matter governed by federal, rather than state, law,”

even where the case involves state-law claims. Clark v.

Heidrick, 150 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 1998); see also, e.g.,

Forrestal v. Magendantz, 848 F.2d 303, 305 (1st Cir. 1988); 29

Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §

6263, at 202-03 (1997). Since Mutual invokes only state law and

21

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 21 of 27
argues against the application of federal law, its motion is

denied.11

Motion #25: Mutual’s finances

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to its income, net

worth, or financial condition, arguing that such evidence is not

relevant and is unfairly prejudicial. In products liability

cases, “most states permit the introduction of the defendant’s

financial condition into evidence in order to help the jury

determine the amount of punitive damages necessary to adequately

punish the defendant.” 2 Frumer & Friedman, supra, § 14.06[4],

at 14-84. But punitive damages are not allowed in New Hampshire. 

See Stewart v. Bader, 154 N.H. 75, 88 (2006) (“No damages

[including enhanced compensatory damages] are to be awarded as

punishment to the defendant or as a warning and example to deter

him and others from committing like offenses in the future.”). 

Thus, evidence of Mutual’s financial condition is not relevant

for that purpose.

Bartlett has not shown that Mutual’s financial condition is

relevant for any other purpose. Mutual’s motion is therefore

granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-403; cf. Sawyer v. Boufford, 113

Even under state law, Mutual’s argument would be difficult 11

to accept. See Baxter v. Temple, 157 N.H. 280 (2008) (deeming

psychologist’s expert testimony reliable and admissible where it

included diagnosis of mental disorders).

22

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 22 of 27
N.H. 627, 630 (1973) (vacating “an order requiring the defendant

to disclose his financial worth” in a personal injury case

because “his resources are not, and cannot be, an issue in the

litigation”). This ruling is without prejudice, however, to

being revisited should Mutual “open the door” by suggesting that

it would have been too burdensome or costly for it to monitor

Sulindac’s safety risks. See United States v. Fowler, 620 F. 12

Supp. 2d 229, 233 (D.N.H. 2009) (noting that a party can “open[]

the door to cross-examination on [otherwise inadmissible]

evidence by testifying about the subject on direct”) (citing

United States v. Balthazard, 360 F.3d 309, 317 (1st Cir.

2004)).13

Motion #26: Treating physicians

Mutual seeks to preclude Bartlett’s treating physicians from

offering opinion testimony unless they formed their opinions

during the course of Bartlett’s treatment. This motion is denied

But see note 1, supra (reserving judgment on whether 12

Bartlett has trialworthy claims for negligence or enhanced

compensatory damages and, if not, whether she can present

evidence of Mutual’s alleged fault).

Bartlett also argues, in her objection, that she should be 13

allowed to refer to Mutual’s number of employees and its age as a

company. But Mutual has not moved to exclude such evidence,

which is relevant background information, see Faigin v. Kelly,

184 F.3d 67, 81 (1st Cir. 1999), and is not unfairly prejudicial

to Mutual, see Fed. R. Evid. 403.

23

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 23 of 27
as moot. The court already addressed this issue in its recent

ruling on the parties’ expert motions. See Bartlett, 2010 DNH

123, at 36-37; see also doc. 274 (applying that ruling in

assessing the admissibility of deposition testimony by one of the

physicians).

Motion #27: Liability insurance

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to its insurance

coverage. Since Bartlett has no objection to this motion, it is

granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 411; Adams v. J. Meyers Builders,

Inc., 671 F. Supp. 2d 262, 275 (D.N.H. 2009).

Motion #28: Litigation history

Mutual seeks to preclude any reference to certain motions it

has filed in this case and their outcomes. Since Bartlett has no

objection to this motion, it is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-

403; Bartlett, 2010 DNH 125, at 9 (granting similar motion in

limine filed by Bartlett).

Motion #29: Deposition testimony

Mutual seeks to preclude the use of deposition testimony in

lieu of live testimony, unless this court has deemed the

deponent/witness “unavailable” for trial under Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 24 of 27
32(a)(4). See doc. 274 (deeming four of Bartlett’s potential

witnesses unavailable). Since Bartlett has not objected to this

motion, it is granted.

Motion #30: “Golden rule” argument

Mutual seeks to preclude Bartlett from making a so-called

“golden rule” argument, which invites the jury to put itself in

the plaintiff’s position. Since Bartlett has not objected to

this motion, it is granted. See Forrestal, 848 F.2d at 309

(noting that such argument is “improper” and “universally

condemned”). 

Motion #31: Witness sequestration

Mutual requests that witnesses be sequestered from the

courtroom and prohibited from discussing the case with other

witnesses during the trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 615; United States

v. Magana, 127 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting that, in

addition to sequestration, the court has discretion to “order

that witnesses not converse with each other about the case”).

This motion is granted without objection as to fact witnesses,

including Bartlett’s treating physicians, but not including

Bartlett herself and Mutual’s designated representative, who are

25

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 25 of 27
exempted from sequestration by rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 615(1)-

(2). 

Bartlett argues that expert witnesses should also be

exempted from sequestration because their “presence is . . .

essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.” Fed. R.

Evid. 615(3); see also id., advisory committee notes (1972)

(stating that “essential” witnesses include “an expert needed to

advise counsel in the management of the litigation”). Mutual has

not argued otherwise. Since expert testimony is indeed essential

to the parties’ respective presentations, and since there is

“little if any reason to sequester a witness who is to testify in

an expert capacity only and not to the facts of the case,”14

United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 1991)

(quoting Morvant v. Constr. Aggregates Corp., 570 F.2d 626, 629-

30 (6th Cir. 1978)), the court exempts expert witnesses from its

sequestration order.

Indeed, Rule 703 expressly contemplates the presence of 14

expert witnesses at trial, stating that an expert’s opinions may

be based on “facts or data . . . perceived by or made known to

the expert at or before the hearing.” See Fed. R. Evid. 703

(emphasis added).

26

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 26 of 27
Conclusion

As set forth above, Mutual’s motions in limine are granted 15

in part and denied in part.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 2, 2010

cc: Keith M. Jensen, Esq.

Bryan Ballew, Esq.

Patrick J. O’Neal, Esq.

Eric Roberson, Esq.

Christine M. Craig, Esq.

Timothy P. Beaupre, Esq.

Joseph P. Thomas, Esq.

Paul J. Cosgrove, Esq.

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger, Esq.

Linda E. Maichl, Esq.

Stephen J. Judge, Esq.

Document no. 205. 15

27

Case 1:08-cv-00358-JL Document 290 Filed 08/02/10 Page 27 of 27