Today’s case is a counterpart to our post a few months ago about a case applying Buckman preemption to a contract dispute where adjudicating the alleged breach would have forced the court to decide FDA regulatory issues. In that case (Thogus Products Co. v. Bleep, LLC, 2023 WL 5607458 (N.D. Ohio 2023)), the
While putting together our recent Camp Lejeune post on deliberative process privilege, we came across another discovery dispute that we’ve seen in prescription medical product liability mass tort litigation – plaintiffs refusing to produce their social security numbers. So we decided to take a look at what’s out there. We found that “Courts have routinely
For any of our loyal readers looking to start the New Year with a healthy helping of CLE credit, a friendly reminder that four of your bloggers – Bexis, Steven Boranian, Stephen McConnell, and Lisa Baird – will be presenting a free 90-minute CLE webinar on “The good, the bad and the ugly: The best
On February 6, Dechert is proud to host the 2024 Life Sciences Day, an interdisciplinary program designed for in-house counsel, chief officers, and strategic investors. This dynamic half-day event will feature expert panels discussing key issues in the life sciences sector and include speakers from leading pharmaceutical and biotech companies.
Our panelists will
We’ve been posting about decisions from In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2775, since 2018. Its preemption ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss made the list of ten worst decisions from 2018, and a subsequent preemption decision reflected more MDL madness. Things improved when the court began addressing causation at summary judgment, and pretty soon cases were falling like dominoes. Today’s decision from the MDL, Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2024 WL 99542 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2024), continues that positive trend.Continue Reading Another Dismissal in the Birmingham Hip MDL
Back in 2020, we noted the possible broad implications of a Buckman preemption decision in a somewhat unusual economic loss case that turned on whether a compounded pharmaceutical needed FDA approval through an NDA. When that case, Nexus Pharms., Inc. v. Cent. Admixture Pharm. Servs., Inc., 48 F.4th 1040 (9th Cir. 2022), was affirmed
Two years ago we posted on whether courts could exclude prospective jurors for cause because they weren’t vaccinated. Not much precedent was then available.
Now, with United States v. O’Lear, 2024 WL 79971 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2024), we get the first published appellate decision on the topic, affirming the exclusion. (The Ninth Circuit
Not long ago we posted about how a turncoat expert witness who switched to the dark side had been precluded from testifying in several cases. We have another case to add to the list – King v. Depuy Orthopaedics Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223451 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2023). Only this time, Plaintiff
As we discussed at length in this post, since the 1940s, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and other courts applying Pennsylvania law have refused to subject prescription medical products to strict liability. That is significant because, unlike (now) every other state in the country, since 1987 Pennsylvania precedent prohibited defendants from introducing evidence of their
We reported a few months ago on oral argument in the California Court of Appeal in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court, where the parties argued about whether California law recognizes a broad “duty to innovate.” At issue was whether a product manufacturer could be liable to patients taking one drug for failing to