Messick et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 105

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE CAUSATION TESTIMONY AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LINDA MESSICK,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. CV 12-00693 SI

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
DAUBERT MOTION TO EXCLUDE
CAUSATION TESTIMONY AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.,

12
13

Defendant.
/

14
15

In June 2011, while this action was pending in the Middle District of Tennessee for pretrial

16

proceedings as part of MDL No. 1760 (In re Aredia and Zometa Products Liability Litigation),

17

defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed a Daubert motion to exclude specific causation

18

testimony of plaintiff Linda Messick’s retained expert, Dr. Richard Jackson, and plaintiff’s non-retained

19

experts, Drs. Gary Cecchi, Herbert Fawcett, Pritchard Lam, Matthew Liautaud, Nasser Said-Al-Naief,

20

and Sol Silverman; and also a motion for summary judgment. Those motions were briefed but not

21

decided in the MDL proceeding. Rather, in October 2011 this action was remanded to the Eastern

22

District of North Carolina, where it had originally been filed. Thereafter, on plaintiff’s unopposed

23

motion to transfer, the action was transferred from the Eastern District of North Carolina to this District

24

in February, 2012.

25

On November 8, 2012, this Court heard argument on defendant’s motions. Having considered

26

the parties’ arguments, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s Daubert motion as to Drs. Lam,

27

Silverman, and Jackson. It also GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment, for the reasons

28

set forth below.

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff Linda Messick was diagnosed with breast cancer in August 2000. Pl.’s Response to

3

Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Supp. of Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s SUF”) ¶ 11. She

4

received radiation therapy and several medications, and in April 2002, she was diagnosed with

5

osteoporosis. Id. ¶ 16. From May 7, 2002 to November 14, 2002, Ms. Messick was treated with Zometa

6

therapy, and from December 12, 2002 to June 10, 2004, she was treated with Aredia therapy; both

7

therapies were prescribed by Dr. Cecchi, her oncologist. Id. ¶ 17-19.
During and after her Zometa and Aredia treatments, Ms. Messick visited the dentist for a variety

9

of conditions. She had dental caries; restorative dental work requiring fillings, root canals, crowns,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

extractions and bridge adjustments; mobility in her lower right teeth; and moderate bone loss on tooth

11

#28. Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“Def.’s SUF”) ¶¶ 27, 28. Dr. Lam extracted tooth # 29 in

12

2002, tooth #20 in 2003, and tooth #28 in 2004. Id. Ex. 59 (“Lam Dep. II”) 49:1-16, 56:1-12; Vecchione

13

Decl., Ex. 6 (“Lam Dep. III”) 51:17-22. Additionally, Ms. Messick suffered a hydrochloric acid

14

accident which occurred during a root canal procedure. Lam Dep. III 55:1-3. In August 2002 and

15

November 2003, Ms. Messick was diagnosed with periodontal disease. Def.’s SUF ¶¶ 23-27.

16

On July 17, 2004, Dr. Cecchi recorded that Ms. Messick’s “results improved” and discontinued

17

her Aredia treatment, although the parties dispute whether the “results” referred to Ms. Messick’s bone

18

density. Id. ¶ 20. The parties dispute whether the Aredia and Zometa therapy was used to treat Ms.

19

Messick’s osteoporosis, which is an off-label use. Id. ¶ 17-18. In October 2005, Ms. Messick

20

developed exposed bone in her mouth, which healed completely by October 2008, id. ¶ 33; plaintiff

21

characterizes this as osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”).

22

Novartis is a pharmaceutical company engaging in marketing, distributing, promoting, testing,

23

labeling, and selling the drugs Aredia and Zometa. Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 5. Aredia

24

and Zometa are bisphosphonates prescribed for the management of metastatic disease to the bone and

25

other bone diseases and conditions. Id. ¶ 7. On October 31, 1991, the FDA approved Aredia for the

26

treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy and approved the labeling. Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s SUF ¶ 1.

27

In September 1995, the FDA approved Aredia for other indications, including osteolytic bone metastases

28

related to breast cancer. Id. ¶ 2. On August 20, 2001, the FDA approved Zometa for hypercalcemia of
2

1

malignancy and approved the labeling. Id. ¶ 3. In February 2002, the FDA approved Zometa for

2

multiple myeloma and bone metastases from solid tumors. Id. ¶ 4.

3

On September 26, 2003, Novartis notified the FDA by letter that it was voluntarily revising the

4

Adverse Reactions section of the Aredia and Zometa labeling to reflect information from recent reports

5

of osteonecrosis of the jaw associated with the use of intravenous bisphosphonates. Id. ¶ 43. The same

6

month Dr. Marx published an article discussing the prevalence of ONJ in patients being treated with

7

Aredia and Zometa. Id. ¶ 43. The parties dispute when the public at large learned of the labeling

8

change. Id.
On March 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that Aredia and Zometa

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

caused her ONJ, and that Novartis knew or should have known that bisphosphonates cause changes to

11

patients’ upper and lower jaws that can progress to jaw necrosis and osteomyelitis. SAC ¶ 12. Plaintiff

12

alleges that in 2002, following physicians’ reports that patients taking Aredia or Zometa reported severe

13

complications and sometimes losses of their jaws, Novartis failed to implement studies regarding the

14

risk of ONJ relative to Zometa and Aredia; and that Novartis did not notify physicians of the risk of ONJ

15

until September 2004 and dental professionals until May 2005. Id. ¶ 14-15.

16
17
18

LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

19

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides that expert testimony based upon knowledge, skill,

20

experience, training, or education is admissible if “(a) scientific, technical, or other specialized

21

knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the

22

testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and

23

methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”

24

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

25

The district court is charged with making the gateway determinations of whether the expert

26

testimony is reliable and relevant. See Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 10-36142, 2012 WL 5669685,

27

at *4 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2012) (reversing a district court for not making reliability or relevance findings,

28

and admitting the testimony “[i]n the interest of allowing each party to try its case to the jury”). As a
3

1

guide for assessing the scientific validity of expert testimony under the reliability prong of Rule 702,

2

the Supreme Court provided a nonexhaustive list of factors that courts may consider: (1) whether the

3

theory or technique is generally accepted within a relevant scientific community, (2) whether the theory

4

or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error,

5

and (4) whether the theory or technique can be tested. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S.

6

579, 593-94 (1993); see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). The Ninth Circuit

7

also has indicated that independent research, rather than research conducted for the purposes of

8

litigation, carries with it the indicia of reliability. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. (Daubert

9

II), 43 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If the testimony is not based on “pre-litigation” research or if the expert’s research has not been

11

subjected to peer review, then the expert must explain precisely how he went about reaching his

12

conclusions and point to some objective source – a learned treatise, the policy statement of a

13

professional association, a published article in a reputable scientific journal or the like – to show that

14

he has followed the scientific method, as it is practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists

15

in his field. Id. at 1318-19 (citing United States v. Rincon, 28 F.3d 921, 924 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also

16

Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 597 (9th Cir. 1996). The proponent of the evidence

17

must prove its admissibility by a preponderance of proof. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10.

18
19

II.

Motion for Summary Judgment

20

Summary adjudication is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

21

and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

22

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

56(c).

24

In a motion for summary judgment, “[if] the moving party for summary judgment meets its

25

initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes

26

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden of production then shifts so

27

that “the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, ‘specific

28

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec.
4

1

Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

2

(1986)).

3

In judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility

4

determinations or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the

5

nonmoving party. See T.W. Electric, 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.

6

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

The evidence presented by the parties must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conclusory,

8

speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and

9

defeat summary judgment. See Falls Riverway Realty, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls, 754 F.2d 49 (2d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Cir. 1985); Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

11
12
13

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Witnesses

14

In support of her suit, plaintiff Messick proffers her treating physicians and retained expert Dr.

15

Jackson as witnesses who will testify that Aredia and Zometa caused her ONJ. Defendant moves to

16

exclude the specific causation testimony of these expert witnesses. Because plaintiff conceded that Drs.

17

Cecchi, Fawcett, Liautaud, and Said-Al-Naief do not offer specific causation testimony, Pl.’s Opp. at

18

9, 10, 13, their testimony does not fall within the scope of this Daubert motion. Therefore, the Court

19

only considers whether the specific causation testimony of Drs. Jackson, Lam, and Silverman should

20

be excluded.

21
22

A.

23

Dr. Jackson completed his oral and maxillofacial surgery residency in 1982 and became Board

24

Certified in oral maxillofacial surgery in 1984. Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Exclude Causation

25

Testimony of Pl.’s Experts, Ex. 2 (“Independent Medical Examination of Linda Messick” or “IME”).

26

Dr. Jackson has not been involved in any lectures on ONJ, has not conducted research on

27

bisphosphonates or ONJ, and has not been part of any clinical studies in the past seven years. Mem. in

28

Supp. of Mot. to Exclude Causation Testimony of Pl.’s Experts, Ex. 3 (“Jackson Dep. I”) 20:14-19,

Dr. Jackson

5

1

21:2-14. However, he has had “extensive experience” with ONJ in the past and present, and is the

2

primary oral and maxillofacial surgeon managing ONJ in the Sacramento area. IME. Starting in 2003,

3

he “began to see many more cases of osteonecrosis” in patients who had not received radiation therapy

4

to the jaw. Id. After consulting six medical articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine; Journal

5

of Oral Maxillofacial Surgery; Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and

6

Endodontology; and by the American Association of Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons (“AAOMS”), Dr.

7

Jackson opined that the bisphosphonates in intravenous and oral form were the etiologic factor of ONJ,

8

and not radiation: “it is my opinion that bisphosphonates have in the past and present always shown a

9

propensity to cause jaw necrosis in patients.” Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dr. Jackson examined Ms. Messick on February 4, 2011, several years after her ONJ resolved.

11

IME. Relying on that physical examination, his review of her medical records, and the statements of

12

her treating physicians, he wrote an expert report setting forth his diagnosis of Ms. Messick’s exposed

13

bone. Jackson Dep. I. 102:1-6. In addition, Dr. Jackson obtained a piece of bone that had been

14

extracted from Ms. Messick’s mouth in November 2008, which he sent to Dr. Said-Al-Naief for a

15

pathology analysis. Id. 26:20-36:14. However, the bone had been stored in a plastic container and had

16

not been preserved, and Dr. Jackson agreed with Dr. Said-Al-Naief’s statement that it is not

17

scientifically reliable to do a pathology analysis three years after a sample is obtained, when the sample

18

had not been preserved in any way. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Exclude Causation Testimony of Pl.’s

19

Experts, Ex. 4 (“Said Dep.”) 60:9-12; Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Exclude Causation Testimony of Pl.’s

20

Experts, Ex. 5 (“Jackson Dep. II”) 221:11-18. In his report, Dr. Jackson listed as risk factors for Ms.

21

Messick’s ONJ: use of intravenous Aredia and Zometa, tooth extractions, advanced age (73 years old),

22

Caucasian race, osteopenia, and cortical steroid therapy. IME. He performed a differential diagnosis

23

and found that Ms. Messick met the three criteria defined by the AAOMS for a diagnosis of

24

bisphosphonate-related ONJ (“BRONJ”): (1) she had a past history of Aredia and Zometa use, (2) she

25

had exposed necrotic bone that persisted for more than eight weeks, and (3) she had no history of

26

radiation therapy to the jaws. Id. He ruled out alternative diagnoses of radiation-induced osteonecrosis

27

of the jaw because she did not have radiation in her jaw, and non-suppurative osteomyelitis because she

28

did not have any symptoms of infection. Id.
6

1
2

(1)

Reliability

As an initial matter, a court must determine if a witness has the required expertise under Rule

4

702(a), whether it be “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Based on Dr. Jackson’s

5

medical education, board certification, and his clinical experience as an oral and maxillofacial surgeon

6

treating ONJ, the Court finds that he is qualified under Rule 702(a). However, for other reasons the

7

Court finds that Dr. Jackson’s testimony is insufficient to meet the Daubert threshold reliability test.

8

Under the reliability prong of Rule 702, the testimony must reflect scientific knowledge derived

9

from the scientific method. Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1316. In determining whether experts have derived

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

their findings through the scientific method, the Court examines the expert’s independent research and

11

reliance on objective sources, such as treatises or published articles in reputable journals. Id. at 1318-19.

12

Dr. Jackson’s testimony depends both on his clinical experience, and six recent medical publications.

13

These sources, however, these are only reliable for an assertion of general causation, not specific

14

causation in Ms. Messick’s case.

15

As to specific causation, Dr. Jackson tried to rely on a pathology analysis to show that Ms.

16

Messick’s ONJ was caused by Aredia and Zometa, but he admitted this was scientifically unreliable,

17

owing to the lack of preservation of the three year-old bone sample. Dr. Jackson performed a

18

differential diagnosis of Ms. Messick’s condition, ruling out osteomyelitis, osteoradionecrosis, and

19

osteonecrosis in general, to diagnose her with BRONJ. However, Dr. Jackson identified five other risk

20

factors that contributed to Ms. Messick’s BRONJ besides the Aredia and Zometa. Although he asserted

21

that “it just doesn’t happen” that a patient with all of Ms. Messick’s risk factors but without exposure

22

to bisphosphonates would have developed ONJ, he never explained the scientific basis for this

23

conclusion. Jackson Dep. I 124:20-125:12. Indeed, when asked if there is “any scientifically reliable

24

way for [him] to determine in a patient who has multiple risk factors at one time which of those

25

particular risk factors is causing the underlying necrotic bone in the jaw,” he answered “no.” Mem. in

26

Supp. of Mot. to Exclude Causation Testimony of Pl.’s Experts, Ex. 6 (“Jackson Dep. III”) 116:21-

27

117:1.

28

The Court finds that Dr. Jackson’s opinion that Ms. Messick’s ONJ was caused by her
7

1

bisphosphonate use, instead of her other risk factors, is not based on reliable scientific methodology.

2

See also Luttrell v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 07-CV-3015 TR, 2012 WL 4513109, at *11 (E.D.

3

Wash. Oct. 1, 2012) (excluding Dr. Jackson’s causation testimony in part because he offered no

4

explanation why he ruled out alternative hypotheses of causation beyond “bald assertions” that BRONJ

5

is unique compared to other causes of ONJ).

6
7

(2)

Relevance

The Court also finds that Dr. Jackson’s causation testimony does not meet the relevance

9

requirement of Rule 702. Relevance for purposes of Rule 702 is assessed by looking to the governing

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

substantive standard for causation. Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1320. In this case the governing substantive

11

standard, supplied by California tort law, requires plaintiff to show both general causation (i.e. that the

12

drugs have the capacity to cause the condition at issue) and specific causation (i.e. that the drugs caused

13

the plaintiff’s condition): “plaintiffs [] [must] show not merely that [the medication] increased the

14

likelihood of injury, but that it more likely than not caused their injuries.” In re Silicon Gel Breast

15

Implants Products Liability Litigation, 318 F. Supp. 2d 879, 890 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (emphasis in

16

original); see also Golden v. CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., 528 F.3d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 2008);

17

Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1320.

18

Here, Novartis argues that Dr. Jackson’s testimony is not relevant to show that Aredia and

19

Zometa specifically caused Ms. Messick’s ONJ. Dr. Jackson’s differential diagnosis only determines

20

that Ms. Messick’s ONJ is related to her bisphosphonate use, and he admits that a diagnosis of BRONJ

21

does not mean that bisphosphonates caused her ONJ. See Jackson Dep. I 154:11-20 (“Well, the key is

22

not the cause, the key is the support. Bisphosphonates support osteonecrosis, just like oxygen supports

23

fire. So fire is not caused from oxygen, but it certainly is a necessary ingredient.”). Although he

24

asserted in a hypothetical that a patient like Ms. Messick would not contract ONJ without exposure to

25

bisphosphonates, he never opined that Aredia and Zometa actually caused Ms. Messick’s ONJ, and

26

indeed, he stated that there was no scientifically reliable way for him to do so. Thus, Dr. Jackson’s

27

testimony is not relevant to determine the specific causation of Ms. Messick’s ONJ.

28

Therefore, because the Court finds that Dr. Jackson’s testimony is neither reliable nor relevant
8

1

under Rule 702, it GRANTS defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Jackson’s testimony.

2
3

B.

4

Dr. Silverman is an oral medicine specialist. Mot. at 9. He saw Ms. Messick from October 5,

5

2004 to March 31, 2009. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Exclude, Ex. 15 (“Silverman Dep.”) 18:19-19:2.

6

Dr. Silverman “assumed” Ms. Messick’s exposed bone was caused by the history of intravenous

7

bisphosphonate use and Ms. Messick’s medical history, id. 62:12-15, stating “[t]here was a possibility

8

of an association.” Id. 95:25-96:6. He did not complete a differential diagnosis to reach that conclusion,

9

nor did he conduct a comprehensive literature search or conduct research relating to ONJ, BRONJ,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Drs. Lam and Silverman

Aredia, or Zometa, or publish articles relating to BRONJ and ONJ. Id. 12:18-25, 52:4-6, 109:3-7.

11

Dr. Lam is an oral surgeon who treated Ms. Messick from January 17, 1995 to November 20,

12

2008. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Exclude, Ex. 11 (“Lam Dep. I”) 18:20-25. Dr. Lam did not make a

13

definitive diagnosis for Ms. Messick’s condition, but had a “working diagnosis” or “impression” that

14

Ms. Messick’s ONJ was related to her bisphosphonate therapy. Id. 92:16-25. In such instances where

15

Dr. Lam does not have his own definitive diagnosis, it has been his habit and custom to refer patients

16

to Dr. Silverman for diagnosis and to defer to him in those circumstances. Id. 75:8-15. Dr. Lam looked

17

to Dr. Silverman to provide a more definitive diagnosis for Ms. Messick’s condition; Dr. Silverman

18

concurred with Dr. Lam’s working diagnosis of osteonecrosis. Id. 93:1-11.

19

The Court finds that because Dr. Silverman merely assumed Ms. Messick’s ONJ was

20

bisphosphonate-related and did not rely on scientific methods to determine the cause of Ms. Messick’s

21

ONJ, his causation testimony must be excluded. Likewise, because Dr. Lam merely formed an

22

impression and deferred to Dr. Silverman for a definite diagnosis, his causation testimony must be

23

excluded as well. Dr. Silverman’s “assumption” and Dr. Lam’s “impression” are simply inadequate to

24

satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s requirement under Rule 702, that where evidence of pre-litigation research

25

or research subject to peer review is unavailable, the expert must point to an objective source, such as

26

a treatise, policy statement of a professional association, or a published article in a reputable scientific

27

journal. Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1318-19 (testimony inadmissible where expert offered no tests and no

28

testable theory as to causation, only drawing unsupported conclusions and relying on animal studies and
9

1

chemical structure analyses). Drs. Lam and Silverman offered only assumptions and impressions.

2

Moreover, neither has shown that Aredia and Zometa more likely than not caused Ms. Messick’s

3

injuries, as required under California tort law under the relevance prong of Rule 702. Id. at 1320.

4

The Court finds that neither Dr. Lam nor Dr. Silverman used reliable methods to determine the

5

cause of Ms. Messick’s ONJ as required by Rule 702. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendant’s

6

motion to exclude their testimony.

7
8

II.

Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff alleged six causes of action against Novartis based on her allegation that Aredia and

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Zometa caused her osteonecrosis of the jaw: (1) strict liability for defective design, manufacture and

11

warning, (2) negligent manufacture, (3) negligent failure to warn, (4) breach of express warranty, (5)

12

breach of implied warranty, and (6) loss of consortium. Certain of the manufacturing and consortium

13

causes of action have been waived. For the remaining causes of action, Novartis argues that summary

14

judgment in its favor is proper for numerous reasons.1 This Court finds that plaintiff has submitted

15

insufficient evidence to establish causation, and that this failure is dispositive of all her claims.

16

In a pharmaceutical personal injury action, causation must be proven within a reasonable medical

17

probability, based upon competent expert testimony, and “[m]ere possibility alone is insufficient to

18

establish a prima facie case.” Jones v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 163 Cal. App. 3d 396, 402 (1985). “A

19

possible cause only becomes ‘probable’ when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations,

20

it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action.” Id. at 403. A plaintiff must

21

prove both general causation (here, that Aredia and Zometa have the capacity to cause ONJ) and specific

22

causation (here, that Ms. Messick’s ONJ was caused by Aredia or Zometa). See In re Silicone Gel

23

Breast Implants Products Liab. Litig., 318 F. Supp. 2d at 922. Because Ms. Messick bears the ultimate

24

burden of proof on causation, Novartis has only to point to the absence of a genuine issue of material

25
26
27
28

1

Novartis contends that there is insufficient evidence establishing causation; that there is no
legal or factual showing that Novartis had a duty to warn Ms. Messick; that its warning was adequate;
that any warnings would not have been heeded; that strict liability is barred by California law; that there
was no express warranty; and that there was no privity of contract. Because this Court finds the
causation question dispositive, it expresses no view on the other contentions.
10

1

fact to obtain summary judgment. Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1315 (citing Maffei v. Northern Insulation of

2

New York, 12 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.1993)).

3

Novartis argues that if the Court grants its Daubert motion to exclude causation testimony by

4

Ms. Messick’s experts, then she will have no admissible evidence to prove medical causation, and

5

therefore Novartis would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all Ms. Messick’s claims. The

6

Court agrees. There is a complete absence of affirmative evidence in the record that Aredia and Zometa

7

more likely than not caused Ms. Messick’s ONJ. The Court has excluded specific causation testimony

8

by all of Ms. Messick’s experts. Proof that Aredia and Zometa caused Ms. Messick’s ONJ is a required

9

element in all her damage claims. Therefore, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

judgment.

11
12

CONCLUSION

13

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, defendant’s motion to exclude witness

14

testimony on specific causation is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

15

GRANTED. (Docket Nos. 20 and 21).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: February 15, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11