New Jersey law requires that trial courts conduct a “rigorous gatekeeping” analysis when assessing the admissibility of expert opinions. That’s the Accutane standard, named for the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Accutane, 234 N.J. 340 (2018). To the extent there was any ambiguity on whether Accutane applies to all civil cases
This post is not from the Reed Smith or Dechert sides of the blog.
We previously posted about the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling that proper application of Delaware Rule 702 required the exclusion of plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac litigation. Since then, we’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last week, it dropped with a resounding boom. Today’s decision applied the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling and dismissed over 80,000 cases. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litig., No. N22C-090101, 2026 WL 1009008 (Del. Super. Apr. 14, 2026).
The decision focuses on the question of which plaintiffs are bound by the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The court denied plaintiffs leave to supplement their expert reports on December 1, 2025, and the defense argued that all plaintiffs with cases filed before December 1, 2025, are bound by the ruling. Recognizing that the litigation was about to be eviscerated, plaintiffs made a number of desperate arguments.
Continue Reading No Mulligans in Delaware – Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts Results in Dismissal of 80,000 Zantac Cases
We have spilled a lot of blog ink on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 recently, so it was nice to see a case from our home state of California driving home the importance of following the rules when it comes to expert opinions. California has a reputation for allowing expert opinions into evidence more permissively
“To be clear, while an association between acetaminophen and autism has been described in many studies, a causal relationship has not been established . . . .” That is not your DDL bloggers speaking (although we did add the emphasis). It is not a drug manufacturer speaking, nor any particular doctor or researcher speaking. It
The MDL and state court proceedings involving saxagliptin-based diabetes drugs (such as Onglyza and Kombiglyze) strike us as the mass tort that never should have been. These proceedings initially followed a familiar model—a publication identified a signal of a risk (albeit an exceptionally weak signal), and plaintiffs’ lawyers took their cue to collect their inventories
We had the pleasure of speaking on a panel at ACI last week, including discussion of the terrific order from the Zantac MDL excluding all the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. That order essentially did away with an entire MDL and came in fourth on our list of best decisions of 2022 . Our thoroughly enjoyable
When you depose the other side’s expert, there’s always that string of questions where you collect the admissions of non-expertise. “You’re not an expert in x? You’re not an expert in y? You’re not an expert in z?” Etc. Sometimes the expert does some clever fencing. E.g., “What do you mean by expert?” Or worse
When we were small – ten or so – our father worked twenty miles from our home, in the town in which we now live. The town was – and is – a few miles from the Devon Horse Show, a world-famous affair held for eleven days each spring spanning Memorial Day Weekend. For one
The Incretin-Based Therapies MDL has followed a long and winding road, and it all should come to an end with a recent Ninth Circuit opinion affirming the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ only general causation expert. It all started in 2013 with the MDL transfer of cases involving multiple diabetes drugs to the Southern District of
The pelvic mesh remand hits just keep coming. We like Shostrom v. Ethicon, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55748 (D. Colorado March 28, 2022), because it hammers some ubiquitous plaintiff mesh experts and because it finds a way to depart from an awful MDL ruling. The fact that the opinion comes at the expense