Opinion ID: 774843
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Columbia Study

Text: 43 The district court found the Columbia cardiovascular study unreliable because (1) it was commissioned by Metabolife, (2) it was not completely finished, and (3) the part that was finished had not been subjected to peer review. 72 F. Supp. 2d at 1169-70. Metabolife argues that the relevant portion of the study was completed with the data in final form, the research was begun pre-litigation, and Dr. Strauss's declaration provides a detailed description of the methodology that she used. 44 Excluding the Columbia study was an abuse of discretion. It was plain error to hold that the Columbia study was not finished -while the overall project was ongoing, all of the relevant data had been gathered in final form, and Metabolife presented an expert interpretation of that data. We remand the issue of reliability to the district court. As explained above, when research is begun pre-litigation, it may be reliable without peer review. Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1317. Rather than disqualify the study because of incompleteness or because it was commissioned by Metabolife, the district court should examine the soundness of the methodology employed. 45 The district court also noted in dicta that the Columbia study is of questionable relevancy to the falsity of the statement you can die from taking this product as directed because the study dealt only with particular cardiovascular effects, and there are more ways to die than through `significant adverse cardiovascular events' . . . . This logic is difficult to follow given that the main health risk allegedly associated with Metabolife 356 is its effect as a stimulant on the cardiovascular system. 46