In Re: Prempro Products et al

Filing 1914

SUPERCEDING ORDER re 1888 Order identifying PPO-9 cases ready to proceed with case-specific discovery. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 11/20/08. (mkf)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN RE: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION : : : : MDL DOCKET NO. 4:03-CV-1507-WRW ALL CASES SUPERCEDING ORDER Based on Wyeth's November 19, 2008 Letter,1 the November 4, 2008 PPO-9 Order2 is superceded as follows. 1. Already Part of PPO-9 These cases were part of the original batch of PPO-9 cases, and should not have been included in the November 4, 2008 Order (but, based on the previous 2007 PPO-9 Order, discovery in these cases should be well underway): 4:04-cv-01164-WRW 4:05-cv-00799-WRW 4:05-cv-00802-WRW 4:05-cv-00960-WRW 4:05-cv-01941-WRW 2. Hasley, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al (E.D. Ark.) Boon v. Wyeth, et al (W.D. Ark.) Knollenberg v. Wyeth, et al (W.D. Ark.) Trenthem v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Davidson v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Involved Manufacturers Other Than Wyeth3 The following cases involved manufacturer defendants other than Wyeth or Pfizer and are no longer subject to PPO-9 discovery: 4:04-cv-02259-WRW 4:04-cv-01323-WRW Frailey, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al (W.D. Ark.) Conwell, et al v. Wyeth, et al 1 Doc. No. 1907. Doc. No. 1888. 2 The fact that sales representatives or doctors are named as defendants should not disqualify the case from PPO-9. 1 3 3. Injuries Other than Breast Cancer As Wyeth pointed out, the following cases involve non-breast cancer injuries and, therefore, do not qualify for discovery under PPO-9. I agree. Accordingly, these cases (or plaintiffs) are no longer subject to PPO-9 discovery: 4:04-cv-00982-WRW 4:05-cv-00542-WRW 4:05-cv-00748-WRW 4:05-cv-01038-WRW 4:05-cv-01065-WRW 4:05-cv-01857-WRW 4:06-cv-01640-WRW 4:04-cv-00854-WRW 4:04-cv-00924-WRW 4:04-cv-00926-WRW 4:04-cv-00999-WRW 4:04-cv-01032-WRW 4:04-cv-01032-WRW 4:04-cv-01032-WRW 4:04-cv-01032-WRW Leribeus (Caldwell, et al.) v. Wyeth Pharm, et al4 Davis v. Wyeth (E.D. Ark.) Price, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al (E.D. Ark.) Echols et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Spieler et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Davis v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Carey v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Taylor v. Wyeth Inc, et al Klumpe, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Shutt, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Locke v.Wyeth Aleman (Hall, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al5 Brown (Hall, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al6 Hall (Hall, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al7 Williamson (Hall, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al8 This case involves several plaintiffs, but only Ms. Leribeus is ineligible for PPO-9 discovery -- only her case involves an injury other than breast cancer. As to other plaintiffs in the case, Wyeth points out that defendants other than Wyeth and Pfizer are involved. While that is true, the fact that sales representatives or doctors are named as defendants should not disqualify the case from PPO-9. The remaining plaintiffs qualify for PPO-9 discovery. This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 6 7 8 5 4 Id. Id. Id. 2 4:04-cv-01034-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01050-WRW 4:04-cv-01109-WRW 4:04-cv-01111-WRW 4:04-cv-01112-WRW 4:04-cv-01115-WRW 4:04-cv-01203-WRW 4:04-cv-01260-WRW 4:04-cv-01314-WRW 4:04-cv-01314-WRW 4:04-cv-01326-WRW 4:04-cv-01371-WRW Bradley v. Wyeth Pharm, et al Aragon (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al9 Ernst (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al10 King (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al11 Pareti (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al12 Rich (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al13 Rokusek (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al14 Verrier (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al15 Wood (Aragon, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al16 Dikselis, et al v. Wyeth, et al Aranda v. Wyeth Inc, et al Helms, et al v. Wyeth, et al Webb, et al v. Wyeth, et al Simmons v. Wyeth Inc, et al Mann, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al McCumbers, et al v. Wyeth, et al Gardner (Kelley, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al17 Kelley (Kelley, et al) v. Wyeth Inc, et al18 Wilson v. Wyeth Inc, et al Ross, et al v. Wyeth, et al 9 Id. Id. 10 11 This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 18 Id. 3 4:04-cv-01380-WRW 4:04-cv-01446-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01974-WRW Kingsley v. Wyeth, et al Duke, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Barlow (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al19 Bell (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al20 Ellis (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al21 Feldman (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al22 Friend (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al23 Ginobbi (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al24 Goldstein (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al25 Kulesa (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al26 Ladd (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al27 Mead-Nesley (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al28 Palmisano (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al29 Tagliaferri (Barlow, et al) v. Wyeth, et al30 Alford v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al 19 20 21 22 23 Id. Id. Id. Id. This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 24 25 26 27 28 29 Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 30 Id. 4 4. Cases Designated for PPO-9 Discovery The following cases are designated to proceed with case-specific discovery depositions. The parties may take the depositions of the plaintiff(s), spouse(s), treating physician(s), and sales representative(s). When scheduling the depositions, the parties should be careful not to load one firm's wagon with more poles than a mule can pull, i.e., I expect all parties to be reasonable in this regard. Below are additional Arkansas cases and non-Arkansas cases for which case-specific discovery depositions may commence: A. Arkansas Cases Pilgrim, et al v. Wyeth, et al (E.D. Ark.) Oostenink, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al (W.D. Ark.) Davis, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al (E.D. Ark.) Tripp, v. Pharmacia & UpJohn, et al (E.D. Ark.)31 Jennen v. Wyeth, et al (W.D. Ark.) Jordan v. Wyeth, et al (W.D. Ark.) Hicks et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.)32 Hargrave et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Groves et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Vess et al v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Riggs et al v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Rankin v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Britt v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Woffard v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Welch v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) 3:05-cv-00151-WRW 4:04-cv-02258-WRW 4:05-cv-00719-WRW 4:05-cv-00733-WRW 4:05-cv-00797-WRW 4:05-cv-00801-WRW 4:05-cv-01033-WRW 4:05-cv-01040-WRW 4:05-cv-01041-WRW 4:05-cv-01066-WRW 4:05-cv-01379-WRW 4:05-cv-01485-WRW 4:05-cv-01709-WRW 4:06-cv-00192-WRW 4:06-cv-00299-WRW Although Wyeth is not a defendant, Pfizer is, and the case qualifies for PPO-9 discovery. Although Wyeth was dismissed from this case by a PPO-8 Order, Pfizer remains a defendant, and the case qualifies for PPO-9 discovery. 5 32 31 4:06-cv-01383-WRW 4:07-cv-00109-WRW 4:07-cv-00110-WRW 4:04-cv-00999-WRW B. Lewis v. Wyeth et al (E.D. Ark.) Fisher v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Gant v. Wyeth et al (W.D. Ark.) Locke, et al v. Wyeth, et al Non-Arkansas Cases Hettleman, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Harding, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Ayers, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Steadman, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Daff, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Wakeen, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Demetriades, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Spinelli, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Harrison v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, et al Hansen, et al v. Wyeth, et al Mead, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Burton v. Wyeth Inc, et al Boyett, et al v. Wyeth Pharm, et al33 Neal, et al v. Wyeth Pharm, et al34 Chandler, et al v. Greenstone Ltd, et al Levine, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Galati, et al v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, et al Byrne, et al v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, et al Galantini v. Wyeth, et al Keith, et al v. Wyeth, et al Hendrix, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Kammerer, et al v. Wyeth, et al Lapour v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Caldwell v. Wyeth, et. al.35 James v. Wyeth, et al 4:04-cv-00736-WRW 4:04-cv-00737-WRW 4:04-cv-00738-WRW 4:04-cv-00815-WRW 4:04-cv-00825-WRW 4:04-cv-00827-WRW 4:04-cv-00828-WRW 4:04-cv-00829-WRW 4:04-cv-00834-WRW 4:04-cv-00835-WRW 4:04-cv-00855-WRW 4:04-cv-00856-WRW 4:04-cv-00908-WRW 4:04-cv-00909-WRW 4:04-cv-00915-WRW 4:04-cv-00916-WRW 4:04-cv-00919-WRW 4:04-cv-00920-WRW 4:04-cv-00921-WRW 4:04-cv-00922-WRW 4:04-cv-00927-WRW 4:04-cv-00936-WRW 4:04-cv-00957-WRW 4:04-cv-00982-WRW 4:04-cv-01000-WRW Wyeth points out that defendants other than Wyeth and Pfizer are involved. While that is true, the fact that sales representatives or doctors are named as defendants should not disqualify the case from PPO-9. PPO-9 discovery should commence in this case. 34 35 33 Id. Wyeth points out that defendants other than Wyeth and Pfizer are involved. While that is true, the fact that sales representatives or doctors are named as defendants should not disqualify the case from PPO-9. PPO-9 discovery should commence in this case. This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 6 4:04-cv-01003-WRW 4:04-cv-01006-WRW 4:04-cv-01008-WRW 4:04-cv-01015-WRW 4:04-cv-01023-WRW 4:04-cv-01032-WRW 4:04-cv-01035-WRW 4:04-cv-01042-WRW 4:04-cv-01049-WRW 4:04-cv-01055-WRW 4:04-cv-01057-WRW 4:04-cv-01058-WRW 4:04-cv-01080-WRW 4:04-cv-01081-WRW 4:04-cv-01082-WRW 4:04-cv-01083-WRW 4:04-cv-01084-WRW 4:04-cv-01108-WRW 4:04-cv-01110-WRW 4:04-cv-01149-WRW 4:04-cv-01152-WRW 4:04-cv-01156-WRW 4:04-cv-01196-WRW 4:04-cv-01206-WRW 4:04-cv-01220-WRW 4:04-cv-01236-WRW 4:04-cv-01245-WRW 4:04-cv-01259-WRW 4:04-cv-01261-WRW 4:04-cv-01271-WRW Parks, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Wisneski, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Weatherford v. Wyeth, et al Allen, et al v. Wyeth, et al Peters v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Hall, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al36 Aragon, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Simmons v. Wyeth Inc, et al Michalski v. Wyeth, et al Baird v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Schwoegler, et al v. Wyeth Pharm, et al Amalong v. Wyeth Pharm, et al Long v. Wyeth, et al Gatrell v. Wyeth, et al Miller, et al v. Wyeth Lefkowitz, et al v. Wyeth, et al Mallett, et al v. Wyeth, et al Mackin v. Wyeth Inc, et al37 Foster, et al v. Wyeth, et al Armitage, et al v. Wyeth, et al Schuler, et al v. Wyeth Pharm, et al Sliger v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Bongiorno, et al v. Wyeth, et al Stephenson, et al v. Wyeth, et al Kamman, et al v. Wyeth, et al Tropea, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Boyer, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Royce v. Wyeth, et al Keffer v. Wyeth, et al Pelc v. Wyeth, et al This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. Although Wyeth was dismissed from this case by a PPO-8 Order, Pfizer remains a defendant, and the case qualifies for PPO-9 discovery. 7 37 36 4:04-cv-01272-WRW 4:04-cv-01284-WRW 4:04-cv-01312-WRW 4:04-cv-01314-WRW 4:04-cv-01317-WRW 4:04-cv-01318-WRW 4:04-cv-01381-WRW 4:04-cv-01382-WRW 4:04-cv-01443-WRW 4:04-cv-01448-WRW 4:04-cv-01466-WRW 4:04-cv-01487-WRW 4:04-cv-01539-WRW 4:04-cv-01541-WRW 4:04-cv-01542-WRW 4:04-cv-01543-WRW 4:04-cv-01973-WRW 4:04-cv-01975-WRW 4:04-cv-01976-WRW 4:04-cv-01977-WRW 4:04-cv-02260-WRW 4:04-cv-02266-WRW 4:04-cv-02284-WRW 4:04-cv-02298-WRW 4:04-cv-02311-WRW 4:04-cv-02313-WRW Bland v. Wyeth, et al Namin v. Wyeth Pharm, et al Kowal v. Wyeth Inc, et al Kelley, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al38 Smith v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Eckholm, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Torkie-Tork v. Wyeth Cardwell v. Wyeth Fraser, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Barlow, et al v. Wyeth, et al39 McKinney v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs Co Palumbo v. Wyeth Inc, et al Rowan v. Wyeth Kelly v. Wyeth Inc, et al Richardson, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Eddings, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Aderhold v. Wyeth, et al Anderson v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Anderson v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Anderson v. Wyeth Pharmaceutical, et al Sharma, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Poteat v. Wyeth Inc, et al Briggs v. Wyeth Inc, et al Bauman, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Golden, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al Moss, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2008. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.__________ UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT This case involves multiple plaintiffs, but only those plaintiffs with injuries other than breast cancer are ineligible for PPO-9 discovery. 39 38 Id. 8

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?