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

Heading: profits, size or financial condition, and

Text: (b) amount or size of sales of diet drugs or other products; and (ii) making “‘any statement or argument to the ... jury related directly to evidence relevant only to punitive damages.” 1 We addressed our opinion to PTO 2828, directed to Clark; however, we also noted that the District Court would presumably “modify all orders” at issue in the appeal in accordance with the revisions to PTO 2828. 6 Id. In addition to specifically approving portions of PTO 2828, we required that the following provisions be excised: (i) categorical evidentiary restrictions that barred evidence relevant to proving VHD claims; (ii) limitations on exhibits and deposition testimony that precluded evidence relevant to VHD claims; and (iii) prohibitions on making any statement or argument to the court” on matters other than those specified. Id. at 317-18. Finally, in addition to the required revisions and specifically approved provisions, we suggested that the District Court consider other measures aside from imposing evidentiary restraints, “for example, ordering language to be included in a stipulation or proposed jury instruction that would make it clear to the jury that exemplary damages may not be awarded. Or ... direct[ing] the parties to agree to a bifurcated trial-where damages are determined apart from liability-in the event that the state court were to deem it advisable.” Id. at 318.