Straka v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 190

ORDER The Court makes the following amendment to its previous 188 Order: Defendants' 89 Motion in Limine on Various Issues is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted re garding reference to other products of Defendants that do not meet the "substantial similarity" test for relevance, and granted regarding the exclusion of marketing materials from other drug companies. The motion is denied in all other respects(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on December 29, 2011. (DML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE LEVAQUIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
___________________________________

MDL No. 08-1943 (JRT)
_______________________________
Civil No. 08-5742 (JRT)

CLIFFORD STRAKA,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Defendants.

Ronald S. Goldser, David M. Cialkowski, and Genevieve Zimmerman,
ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP, 1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402; Lewis J. Saul and Kevin M. Fitzgerald, LEWIS
SAUL & ASSOCIATES, 183 Middle Street, Suite 200, Portland, ME
04101, Edward A. Coleman, LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, 1540
Broadway, 26th Fl, New York, NY 10036; James A. Morris, Jr., MORRIS
LAW FIRM, 11614 Bee Caves Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78738; and
Robert J. Binstock, REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP, 4265 San Felipe, Suite
1000, Houston, TX 77027, lead counsel for plaintiff Straka.
James B. Irwin and Douglas J. Moore, IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART
& MOORE, LLC, 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA
70130; Dana M. Lenahan, Tracy J. Van Steenburgh, Scott Smith and Jan R.
McLean Bernier, NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA, 120 South Sixth
Street, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55402, William V. Essig, DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700, Chicago,
IL 60606, lead counsel for Defendants.

Defendants filed a motion in limine on various issues identical to a motion
previously filed in the MDL. Finding no newly discovered evidence, changes in the
governing law or manifest error in the previous rulings, the Court adheres to the law of

24

the case regarding this ruling. In order to be more consistent with those Orders, the Court
makes the following amendment to its previous Order (Docket No. 188).

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine on Various Issues [Docket
No. 89] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED
regarding reference to other products of Defendants that do not meet the “substantial
similarity” test for relevance, and granted regarding the exclusion of marketing materials
from other drug companies. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.

DATED: December 29, 2011
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-2-