Opinion ID: 3017019
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: punitive, exemplary, or multiple damages;

Text: (b) Wyeth’s profits, size, or financial condition; or (c) the amount or size of Wyeth’s sales of diet drugs or other products; in the following cases: Smart v. American Home Prods., Inc., No. 02-0440259-CV (Jim Wells County, Tex.) (PTO No. 2680); Clark v. Wyeth, et al., No. B020282-C (Orange County, Tex.) (PTO No. 2828); Wilson, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 03cv305BN (S.D. Miss.), and James, et al. v. Wyeth, et al., No. 2002-95 (Smith County, Miss.) (PTO No. 2883); Eichmiller v. American Home Products Corp., Civil Action No. 2002CV52077 (Fulton County, Georgia), Cook, et al. v. Wyeth, Cause No. 2002-21 (Hinds County, Miss.), and Caldwell v. American Home Products Corp., No. 2002113-CV3 (Jones County, Miss.) (PTO No. 3088); Gatlin v. American Home Products Corp., et al., No. 2003-4007 (Orleans Parish, La.) (PTO No. 3123); (3) the parties in the above actions are ordered promptly to agree and stipulate to a reverse-bifurcated trial, that is a trial in which the issues of causation, injury and compensatory damages only are tried first and apart from liability and to agree and stipulate to a jury instruction that punitive, multiple or exemplary damages may not be awarded; Following the issuance of PTO 3888, the District Court filed Pretrial Order No. 3962 which addressed the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to stay PTO 3888's injunction pending appeal. Agreeing to adopt the brief filed in the PTO 3888 appeal, plaintiffs appealed PTO 3962 on October 26, 2004. 8 (4) plaintiffs, their agents, attorneys, and derivative claimants in the above actions are ENJOINED from trying their actions unless and until the said written Stipulations are filed with the state trial court; and (5) plaintiffs, their agents, attorneys, and derivative claimants in the above actions are ENJOINED from arguing to the state trial court that the reverse-bifurcation procedure or jury instructions set forth in the aforesaid Stipulations should not be used.” The District Court elaborated on and clarified certain provisions in PTO 3888 during a hearing on September 20, 2004 and incorporated its comments into the Memorandum accompanying PTO 3962. The Court noted that the mandatory stipulation for reverse bifurcation should not be effective “unless and until the state court judge rules that reverse bifurcation is advisable.” The District Court also noted that it had inadvertently neglected to use the term “exclusively” in referring to the introduction of evidence or advancing arguments about punitive damages.