Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., No. 17-1730 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order limiting the scope of plaintiff's general causation phase discovery in this products liability suit alleging that plaintiff's husband's use of Enbrel caused his myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) which resulted in his death. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of plaintiff's general causation discovery; the district court's basis for weighing proportionality was based on common sense and the search conducted by plaintiff's counsel during the discovery hearing; the district court did not rely on misrepresented facts by Amgen in issuing its discovery orders; any error in failing to provide plaintiff an opportunity to cross-examine Amgen's expert was harmless; the district court was under no obligation to order Amgen to provide plaintiff with materials the FDA requests—but does not require—from pharmaceutical companies when the agency evaluates safety risks; and plaintiff's assertion that the district court's order limiting the scope of her discovery prejudiced her case was rejected.
The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under Rule 11 and by imposing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927. Finally, the district court properly exercised its inherent power to sanction plaintiff's counsel, and here was no abuse of discretion
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. In this action alleging plaintiff's deceased's use of the biologic Enbrel causes him to develop myelodysplastic syndrome, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of plaintiff's general causation discovery; the district court did not rely on misrepresented facts by defendant in issuing its discovery orders; any error in limiting plaintiff's ability to cross-examine defendant's discovery expert was harmless as the court did not rely on his opinion in reaching its decision that the scope of plaintiff's discovery demand was unreasonable; the district court was under no obligation to order defendant to provide plaintiff the materials the FDA requests - but does not require - from pharmaceutical companies when it evaluates safety risks; the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff for abusing the discovery process, disregarding the court's directives and repeatedly relitigating issues decided by the court; the imposition of sanctions was also permitted under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and the court's inherent power.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.