Exhibit A 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8226-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 1 of 5
1

Cases Relied on by Plaintiffs That Partially Exclude Dr. Parisian’s Opinion

A. Causation Testimony Excluded 

Case Name Case Excerpt 

Bartoli1 “Third, as to causation, Dr. Parisian may not testify. Dr. Parisian is not qualified to give causa

kind.” 

Block2 “Woo Young further argues that Dr. Parisian should not be allowed to testify as to causation. 

Dr. Parisian will not testify as to causation or diagnosis. If Dr. Parisian in fact attempts to offe

trial, the Court will prohibit such testimony at that time.” 

Heparin3 “Dr. Parisian is not qualified to offer testimony as to medical or physiological causation issu

medical doctor, she is not an epidemiologist, immunologist, or hematologist, and therefor

necessary background and training to offer opinions concerning adverse reactions and contaminated Heparin.” 

In re Mirena4 “Defendants' motion with respect to testimony relating to medical causation or regulatory cau

granted...Dr. Parisian is an expert in the field of FDA regulations, and her testimony will be t

field. Defendants' motion with respect to proposed testimony by Dr. Parisian regarding safer ais granted.” 

Jones5 “Dr. Parisian's expertise lies in FDA regulations and in corporate compliance with FDA regul

does not lie in reviewing medical literature or determining whether causal associations exist b

clinically significant hazards...Therefore, none of Dr. Parisian's testimony as to the existencor causal association will be permitted in front of a trier of fact in this case.” 

Phillips6 “[T]he Court is likely not to permit her to testify as an expert as to proper design of the device 

of injuries.” 

B. Narrative Testimony Excluded 

Block2 “Woo Young argues that Dr. Parisian will testify in narrative form, but Block states that she wEthicon7 “Although an expert may testify about his review of internal corporate documents solely for th

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8226-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 2 of 5
2

explaining the basis for his or her expert opinions—assuming the expert opinions are otherwisshe may not offer testimony that is solely a conduit for corporate information.” 

Fosamax7 “In detailing the factual basis for her opinions, Dr. Parisian’s report presents a narrative of sel

through the summary or selective quotation from internal Merck documents, regulatory filingtestimony of Merck employees. The Court agrees with Merck that, to the extent such evide

should be presented to the jury directly. Dr. Parisian’s commentary on any documents and 

will be limited to explaining the regulatory context in which they were created, defin

specialized terminology, or drawing inferences that would not be apparent without the benspecialized knowledge. She will not be permitted to merely read, selectively quote from, 

evidence.”

Heparin3 “Dr. Parisian may not give a narrative history of Heparin contamination, which must be pre

evidence.” 

In re Mirena4 “Dr. Parisian may rely upon the regulatory history of Mirena, as well as documents reflecting 

between Bayer and the FDA and internal Bayer communications, in forming her regulatory opnot present these documents to the jury with no analysis or merely read, selectively quote from

the evidence. Defendants' motion with respect to Dr. Parisian's narrative testimony is granted repeats facts, as opposed to using documents and background to opine on the FDA, the adequ

and the reasonableness of Bayer's conduct pursuant to FDA regulations.” 

C. Legal Opinions Excluded 

Block2 “Stating that Woo Young violated an FDA standard of care, or offering similar testimony, wil

Similarly, Dr. Parisian cannot testify that Woo Young is liable because it promoted its devices inconsistent with the FDCA.” 

Heparin3 “Moreover, testimony of an expert that constitutes mere personal belief as to the weight of 

the province of the jury.’ While Dr. Parisian may offer testimony concerning what a manu

comply with the regulations, she may not offer opinion testimony as to the reasonablenes

conduct.” 

Heparin3 “As with Dr. Siporin, Dr. Parisian may not offer the ‘ultimate question’ testimony that Baxter

quality control measures, or recalls were ineffective or inadequate. Testimony containing lega

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8226-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 3 of 5
3

impermissibly ‘convey a witness; unexpressed, and perhaps erroneous legal standards to the ju

In re: Ethicon8 “In addition to representing inappropriate legal conclusions, such testimony is not he

determining the facts at issue in these cases and runs the risk of misleading the jury and cInsofar as this Motion challenges the FDA-related testimony discussed here, the Motion is GR

D. Corporate Knowledge, Intent, or Ethics Excluded 

Bartoli1 “As to NPC's specific objections, first, Dr. Parisian may not testify as to NPC's intent, motive, 

discussed above, ‘intent is not a proper subject for expert testimony.’ Similarly, ‘bad companyadmissible.” 

Bartoli1 “Second, as to pharmaceutical industry ethical standards, ghostwriting, and undisclosed comp

publications, Dr. Parisian may not testify. There is nothing to suggest that she is an expert in p

company ethics-she has never worked at a pharmaceutical company, and ethical standards for not come from the FDA, which is the agency about whose operations Dr. Parisian has expertis

testimony regarding ghostwriting and undisclosed company funding is inadmissible because s

foundation, that employing such practices does not provide ‘fair and balanced’ information andisclosed.” 

Block2 “Block responds that Dr. Parisian will not express any opinions on the intent, motives, or state 

Young. The Court finds that this issue is moot to the extent that Dr. Parisian might testify as to or state of mind of Woo Young.” 

Fosamax7 “To the extent Merck’s motion seeks to preclude Dr. Parisian from testifying as to the kno

intent, state of mind, or purposes of Merck, its employees, the FDA, or FDA officials, it Parisian conceded at the hearing that her regulatory expertise does not give her the abNevertheless, her report is replete with such conjecture. This is not a proper subject for 

testimony.”

Fosamax7 “She also asserts that “Merck attacks the credibility of physicians not favorable to Merck,” bu

based upon a single email exchange between Merck employees. (Id. ¶ 233–34.) These are not 

mere ‘bad company’ testimony with marginal relevance to the issues in controversy. If other o

at trial to be insufficiently based on expert analysis, they will be excluded.”

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8226-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 4 of 5
4

Heparin3 “Nor may she testify concerning the state of mind, intent, knowledge, purposes, or motivatio

employees, or the FDA.” 

In re Mirena4 “Defendants are correct that an expert's testimony on the ‘intent, motives or states of mind of 

regulatory agencies and others’ is inadmissible.” 

In re Mirena4 “Dr. Parisian...will not be permitted to simply recite or regurgitate documents and speculate o

based on these documents.” 

Jones5 “[A]ny testimony on Novartis' state of mind or intent is excluded as a question for the jur

Parisian.” Id. at 1264. 

* Plaintiffs cite a single case that permitted Dr. Parisian’s testimony in its entirety, In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) P

MDL 2592, 2017 WL 1352860 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2017). After summarizing the defendants’ motion in one parag

no analysis, denied their motion in three sentences. Id. at *3 (“The Court finds that Dr. Parisian is qualified by viexperience and she uses sound methodology in reaching her conclusions. The thrust of the Defendants' objection

they are concerned the witness may assume an advocate role at trial. If Dr. Parisian assumes an advocate role at taddress it at that time. For the time being, however, Defendants' Motion (R. Doc. 5112) is DENIED.”) 

1 Bartoli v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. CIV.A. 3:13-0724, 2014 WL 1515870, at *6–7 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2014) (“Dr. Parisian may no

intent, pharmaceutical industry ethical standards, ghostwriting, and undisclosed company funding of publications, or causation.”). 

2 Block v. Woo Young Med. Co., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Minn. 2013) 3 In re Heparin Product Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 1059660 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2011) 4 In re Mirena IUD Prod. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) 5 Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 235 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to 

testimony finding that “Dr. Parisian may not testify on the following issues: (1) causation, including “causal association”; (2) how a cha

have impacted the decision of a prescribing physician; (3) whether or not Novartis was put on “notice,” including by Study 2202; (4) hoand marketing might have impacted the decision of a prescribing physician; (5) Novartis' state of mind, intent, or motive, including wh

(6) comparisons between ONJ, BRONJ, or the drug Zometa.”). 

6 Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00344-RCJ, 2014 WL 7177256 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2014)7 In re: Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2nd 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 8 In re: Ethicon Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., No. MDL 2327, 2016 WL 4608165 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 2, 2016) 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8226-1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 5 of 5