CHAMBERS v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC

Filing 126

ORDER granting 116 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 124 Motion to Amend. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 9/20/2018 (tlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
VIRGINIA CHAMBERS, surviving
*
spouse of Bobby Lee Chambers on
behalf of all legal heirs of
*
Bobby Lee Chambers; VIRGINIA
CHAMBERS, executor of the
*
estate of Bobby Lee Chambers
*
Plaintiffs,
*
vs.
*
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
*
Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-68 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

Plaintiff Virginia Chambers brought this products liability
action

against

(“Boehringer”)

Defendant
for

Boehringer

alleged

Ingelheim

inadequate

warnings

design regarding one of its products, Pradaxa.

Pharmaceuticals
and

defective

Plaintiff intends

to offer articles written by Thomas J. Moore appearing in BMJ, a
medical journal, as evidence in her case.

Boehringer has filed a

motion in limine to exclude Moore’s articles.

See Def.’s Mot. in

Limine No. 13, ECF No. 72.
Last month, as part of related litigation in Connecticut state
court, Boehringer deposed Mr. Moore.

Before the deposition,

Plaintiff moved for a protective order preventing Boehringer from
designating any of that deposition testimony for use in this

1

action, since the deposition took place after discovery closed.
See Pl.’s Mot. for Protective Order & Objs., ECF No. 114.

Because

time was of the essence, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion
before Boehringer could respond.

See Order Granting Pl.’s Mot.

for Protective Order (Aug. 28, 2018), ECF No. 115.

But the Court

provided that Boehringer could seek reconsideration of that order,
which it promptly did.

See Def.’s Mot. for Reconsid., ECF No.

116.
The Court concludes that if Plaintiff introduces Moore’s
articles,

Boehringer

should

have

the

opportunity

Moore’s deposition testimony in response.

to

present

Therefore, Boehringer’s

motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 116) is granted.

Boehringer

shall be permitted to designate Moore’s deposition testimony for
use in this trial, but it shall only be admissible if Plaintiff
introduces Moore’s articles.
Additionally, the parties have filed a joint motion to stay
the

pretrial

deadlines

related

to

deposition

designations,

counter-designations, and objections pending the Court’s ruling on
the parties’ twenty-two motions in limine.1

See Joint Mot. to

Amend Pretrial Deadline Regarding Dep. Designations, ECF No. 124.
That motion is also granted.

The Court hopes to rule on the

1

Though Plaintiff only filed two motions in limine, one is an “omnibus”
motion that seeks to exclude five types of evidence. See Pl.’s Omnibus
Mot. in Limine, ECF No. 58.

2

parties’

motions

in

limine,

including

Boehringer’s

motion

to

exclude Moore’s articles, in advance of the November 1 pretrial
conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of September, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3