Taylor et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Inc. et al

Filing 362

OPINION AND ORDER: 1) the plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion (776 in 5:18-2809) to alter or amend the Court's Opinion and Order entered August 2, 2022 is DENIED; and 2) the defendants' motion (780 in 5:18-2809) to direct the clerk to enter final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 is GRANTED to the extent that it requests the Court to enter a final judgment in this matter. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 11/3/2022. Associated Cases: 5:18-md-02809-KKC-MAS et al.(STC)cc: COR

Case: 5:18-cv-00053-KKC Doc #: 362 Filed: 11/03/22 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 8428

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
LEXINGTON
IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND
KOMBIGLYZE XR (SAXAGLIPTIN AND
METFORMIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

Master File No. 5:18-md-2809-KKC
MDL No. 2809
ALL CASES

OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION (DE 776) TO ALTER OR AMEND
AUGUST 2, 2022 OPINION
By Opinion and Order dated August 2, 2022 (DE 769 in 5:18-2809), this Court granted
the defendants summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion for more time to identify a
general causation expert. Plaintiffs now move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) to alter or amend that Opinion and Order. The Court will deny the motion.
In their Rule 59(e) motion, the plaintiffs ask the Court to amend the portion of the August
2, 2022 opinion that denied their motion for additional time to identify an acceptable expert on
general causation. The Court pointed out in the August 2, 2022 opinion that the plaintiffs had
been granted ample time to identify an acceptable expert on general causation and that they had
provided the Court with no reason for their inability to do so. Further, in their motion for
additional time, the plaintiffs were unable to identify any such expert willing to testify on their
behalf. Nor did the plaintiffs identify any such expert in their reply brief on that motion. Now, in
this Rule 59(e) motion, the plaintiffs are still unable to identify any such expert.
Instead, the plaintiffs continue to rely on guidelines published in 2022 by the American
Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of
America. In the August 2, 2022 opinion, the Court fully addressed why these guidelines do not

Case: 5:18-cv-00053-KKC Doc #: 362 Filed: 11/03/22 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 8429

obviate the need for expert testimony on general causation. There is no need to repeat that ruling
here. Briefly, the guidelines rely on the SAVOR study. That study established at most an
association between saxagliptin and heart failure. It did not establish that saxagliptin is capable
of causing heart failure. Further, the plaintiffs have produced no evidence or even argument that
the standard for issuing the guidelines is the same as the standard for establishing general
causation in court.
Nor have plaintiffs identified any expert willing to testify that the guidelines establish
general causation. In their reply brief on this current motion, the plaintiffs suggest that maybe
their expert Dr. Martin Wells could do so. They do not assert that Dr. Wells is willing to do so.
And Dr. Wells could not do so because, as the Court explained in its August 2, 2022 opinion, Dr.
Wells and the plaintiffs themselves have explicitly recognized that Dr. Wells is not qualified to
opine on general causation.
In their motion, the plaintiffs also request that the Court amend the summary judgment
opinion to indicate that it is final and appealable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b). That rule permits the Court to direct entry of final judgment as to only certain claims or
parties when an action presents more than one claim for relief or when multiple parties are
involved. Here, however, the Court granted summary judgment as to all of the claims asserted in
the Master Complaint explaining that each of those claims require proof of general causation. As
to the parties, in its August 2, 2022 opinion, the Court ordered the defendants to identify any
open cases that named defendants other than the three defendants who moved for summary
judgment. This was because the Court believed it not appropriate to enter summary judgment in
favor of any defendant who had not moved for such relief. All of the claims asserted against such
other defendants have now been dismissed. Plaintiffs do not identify any cases that would

2 

Case: 5:18-cv-00053-KKC Doc #: 362 Filed: 11/03/22 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 8430

survive the Court's ruling on summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court will enter a final
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
For all these reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1) the plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion (DE 776 in 5:18-2809) to alter or amend the Court's
Opinion and Order entered August 2, 2022 is DENIED; and
2) the defendants' motion (DE 780 in 5:18-2809) to direct the clerk to enter final
judgment pursuant to Rule 58 is GRANTED to the extent that it requests the Court to
enter a final judgment in this matter.
This 3rd day of November, 2022.

3