Okuda v. Wyeth, et al, No. 1:2004cv00080 - Document 232 (D. Utah 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 99 Motion to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert Dr. Bruce Patsner. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/6/12 (alt)
Download PDF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TOSHIKO OKUDA, Plaintiff, vs. PFIZER INC., et al., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS OF PLAINTIFF S EXPERT DR. BRUCE PATSNER Defendants. Case No. 1:04-cv-00080 Judge David Nuffer On June 18 and 19, 2012, pursuant to notice, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants Motion to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff s Expert Dr. Bruce Patsner (Docket No. 99). Plaintiff was represented by James Esparza, Russell T. Abney and James Lampkin. Defendants were represented by Heidi K. Hubbard, Kelly A. Evans and Tracy H. Fowler. Having considered all of the moving papers and the arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion (Docket No. 99) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: 1. Dr. Patsner may testify generally as to Food and Drug Administration processes for drug approval, the regulatory history of hormone replacement therapy, and the adequacy of warnings provided by defendants concerning breast cancer risks in light of information then available. Dr. Patsner also may testify regarding tests that could have been done to further investigate the potential link between the E&P therapy and breast cancer. 2. Dr. Patsner may not testify regarding tests defendants should have undertaken, for the same reasons set forth in the Court s Order on Defendants Daubert motion concerning Drs. Parisian, Blume, and Austin. Nor may Dr. Patsner testify that any logo utilized by defendants created a duty to conduct additional tests or studies. 15332811.4 3. Nor may Dr. Patsner testify as to the intent or motives of defendants. 4. Dr. Patsner may not testify that defendants committed fraud on the FDA or withheld information from the FDA. 5. Nor may Dr. Patsner testify about ghostwriting activities. Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Plaintiff s prescribing physicians relied on ghostwritten articles. There are some very general statements, but not enough to justify his testimony. It does not fit. Dated July 6, 2012. BY THE COURT: ____________________________ David Nuffer United States District Judge Submitted by: /s/ Tracy H. Fowler Tracy H. Fowler SNELL & WILMER LLP 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 Attorneys for Defendants /s/ Kelly A. Evans Kelly A. Evans SNELL & WILMER LLP 3882 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5958 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendants 2 15332811.4 /s/ Heidi K. Hubbard Heidi K. Hubbard WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendants Signed Approval as to Form: /s/ James Esparza (Signed with permission) James Esparza 1434 East 4500 South, Suite 100 Salt Lake City, UT 84117 Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ James W. Lampkin, II (Signed with permission) James Wayne Lampkin, II Russell T. Abney BEASLEY ALLEN CROW & METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Attorney for Plaintiff 3 15332811.4