Opinion ID: 1465141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basis for exclusion of later warnings

Text: Mrs. Giles's principal argument on appeal is that the district court should not have precluded her from introducing the warnings that accompanied Effexor after her husband's death. The parties first disagree about the basis of the district court's decision to exclude the later warnings. Mrs. Giles maintains that the district court excluded this evidence only upon its determination that FDA-mandated warnings were subsequent remedial measures within the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 407. This determination, she argues, was a legal one that we should review de novo. Wyeth, on the other hand, maintains that the district court excluded the evidence under not just Rule 407, but also under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, which allows a district court to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. We agree with Wyeth. Before trial, Wyeth filed a motion in limine to exclude suicide-related warnings given after Mr. Giles's suicide and to exclude scientific data relating to suicidality in pediatric patients taking antidepressants. Wyeth argued in the motion that Rule 403 and Rule 407 each independently supported exclusion of both types of evidence. The district court heard argument on the motion and ruled orally. It denied Wyeth's motion in part, as it allowed the use of scientific evidence relating to pediatric patients. The district court also granted the motion in part, stating that [p]ost remedial measures will not bethey're not admissible. The Court is exercising its discretion not to admit that. During trial, Mrs. Giles's counsel asked the district court to revisit its pre-trial ruling that excluded evidence of the warnings that accompanied Effexor after Mr. Giles's death. The district court declined to allow the evidence of later warnings, stating that its ruling was the same. Under 403, although relevant, the Court's going to exclude this evidence finding that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the confusion of the issues before this... jury. In its ruling at trial, then, the district court invoked Rule 403 by name and used the language of Rule 403 to explain its decision to keep out the later warnings. Even if the district court's pre-trial ruling could be taken to mean it had decided on the basis of Rule 407, the district court clearly ruled during trial that the warnings were excluded under Rule 403. We proceed, then, to analyze whether exclusion under Rule 403 was proper.