STATE OF WISCONSIN et al v. INDIVIOR INC. et al

Filing 436

ORDER THAT THE MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE ARE GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART AS SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE COURT'S ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 11/24/2020. 11/24/2020 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(SEE DOC 678 IN 13-MD-2445)(kp, )

Case 2:16-cv-05073-MSG Document 436 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE
:
MDL NO. 2445
HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE)
:
13-MD-2445
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
:
:
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:,
:
:
Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al.
:
Case No. 16-cv-5073
:
__________________________________________:
STATE OF WISCONSIN
:
By Attorney General Brad D. Schimel, et al.
:
:
CIV. A. NO. 16-5073
Plaintiffs,
:
v.
:
:
INDIVIOR INC. f/k/a RECKITT BENCKISER :
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of November, 2020, upon consideration of (1) the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Reckitt Experts Nicholas M. Fleischer
and Sheldon T. Bradshaw (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc. No. 623; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No.
394) and Defendant’s Response (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc. No. 629; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc.
No. 399); (2) the State Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dolores Curtis, Ph.D. (Civ.
A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No. 392) and Defendant’s Response (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc. No. 628;
Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No. 398); (3) Defendant’s Omnibus Motion to Exclude Certain
Opinions of Nicholas Jewell, Laurence Westreich, Yvonne Tso, Robert Verscharen, Patricia
Zettler, and Deborah Jaskot (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc. No. 625; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No.
396) and Plaintiffs’ Response (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc. No. 631; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No.

Case 2:16-cv-05073-MSG Document 436 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 2

401); and (4) Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Opinions Asserting or Relying
Upon Assertions that Alleged Reckitt Safety Messages Were “False,” “Misleading,”
“Disparaging,” “Fabricated,” “Fraudulent,” “Sham,” or “Deceptive” (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc.
No. 624; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No. 395) and Plaintiffs’ Response (Civ. A. No. 13-2445, Doc.
No. 630; Civ. A. No. 16-5073, Doc. No. 400), it is hereby ORDERED that the Motions are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in detail in the Court’s accompanying
Memorandum Opinion.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.