We think Lone Pine orders are pretty fair. Lone Pine orders are case management orders that require plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation (MDL) to produce specific evidence without which the plaintiffs cannot make a prima facie case. There is nothing unfair about dismissing a case that is fatally flawed for want of critical evidence that cannot be obtained. Yet Lone Pine orders rarely sit well with plaintiffs who cannot (or do not want to have to) make the showing required of them. Rather than accept their fate, these plaintiffs often attack the Lone Pine order in an effort to delay the inevitable. We discussed one such effort in the In re Zostavax MDL in 2022 and earlier this year. The In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) MDL now provides another example, not only of how plaintiffs attack Lone Pine orders but also of how courts should respond to these unmerited attacks. In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2024 WL 4362982 (E.D. La. Oct. 1, 2024).
Category: Evidence
Can a Treating Physician’s Medical Testimony Be “Lay Opinion”? Divided Sixth Circuit Panel Disagrees on Where to Draw the Line
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702” cannot be admitted as a lay opinion. This requirement was added in the 2000 Amendments to Rule 701 to address what the Advisory Committee described as a risk “that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will be evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an expert in lay witness clothing.” Given this history, one might expect courts to err toward applying Rule 702 to any testimony that inherently draws on expertise that laypeople do not possess. But, as illustrated by the Sixth Circuit’s split decision in United States v. Betro, — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3811838 (6th Cir. 2024), some courts use a different approach.
Third Circuit Affirms Lone Pine Order and Ensuing Dismissals in In re Zostavax MDL
In March 2022, the In re Zostavax MDL court entered a Lone Pine order requiring plaintiffs who claimed to have developed shingles as a result of using the Zostavax vaccine to produce certain test results supporting causation. In December 2022, the court dismissed 1,189 cases for failure to comply with that Lone Pine order. We posted about the Lone Pine order in April 2022 and the dismissal order in December of the same year. Now, on appeal, the Third Circuit has affirmed both the Lone Pine order and the dismissal. In re: Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2024 WL 3423709 (3d Cir. July 16, 2024).
Zostavax is a vaccine meant to prevent shingles, a viral infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). The vaccine introduces a weakened strain of VZV, triggering an immune response that primes the recipient’s immune system against non-vaccine sources of VZV (i.e., “wild-type strains”). VZV is responsible for both shingles and chickenpox, and it remains in the body for life. As a result, everyone who had chickenpox as a child faces a risk of the virus reactivating and causing shingles in adulthood. A laboratory test (called a “PCR test”) can reliably distinguish between the strain of VZV used in Zostavax and the wild-type strain one would find due to chickenpox infection.
A KIND Result After Insufficient and Biased Consumer Perception Evidence
Consumer perception evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in a false advertising class action, but vacillating and flawed connections between the evidence and the key question of what a reasonable consumer would expect may lead to its exclusion. The Second Circuit, in Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), provides an illustrative example of this, affirming the Southern District of New York’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ experts and grant of summary judgment to a snack foods manufacturer in a false advertising class action.
In Bustamante, Plaintiffs alleged they were deceived by the packaging of KIND snack bars as “All Natural” despite the inclusion of certain “non-natural” ingredients, and their lawsuit asserted warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and state consumer protection statute claims. Although there were differing elements to Plaintiffs’ various claims, they were narrowed for the purposes of summary judgment to deception, materiality, and injury, with only the element of deception at issue on appeal.
Continue reading “A KIND Result After Insufficient and Biased Consumer Perception Evidence”
Expert’s Results-Driven Methodology Leads to Exclusion and Summary Judgment in Paraquat MDL
An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result. As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method.” Claar v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 502-03 (9th Cir. 1994). A recent opinion from the Southern District of Illinois offers a fine example of an expert with a results-driven approach and a court that called him out on it.
In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1659687 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024), arises from a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in which the plaintiffs claim to have developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of exposure to an herbicide, paraquat. Four plaintiffs whose cases had been chosen for the MDL’s first trials offered a statistician (the parties disputed whether he also qualified as an epidemiologist) as their sole expert to establish general causation. He had a difficult task, as no peer-reviewed literature established a link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. Indeed, when the court asked the plaintiffs to identify such literature, the plaintiffs could cite only a single opinion article. That article had been shared with another of the plaintiffs’ experts before it was published, leading the court to conclude in deciding a prior discovery dispute that there was reason to investigate “whether counsel for the MDL plaintiffs, their experts, or other third parties may have influenced the contents of the article for the benefit of one side in the MDL.” 2023 WL 8372819 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2023).
Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Products Liability Design Defect Cases
Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to products liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer’s compliance with government and industry standards in a strict liability design defect case. The lower courts held that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability. The affirmance appears to support the exclusion of such evidence in design defect cases based on a risk-utility theory, but leaves uncertainty for the future because only three justices joined the principal opinion; a fourth justice concurred with the result but concluded the record was inadequate to resolve the legal issue, while two others dissented.
Plaintiff sued the maker of a mobile scaffold which collapsed. Defendant served an expert report that relied in part on government (OSHA) and industry (ANSI) standards. Plaintiff filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of compliance with those standards, relying mainly on Lewis v. Coffing Hoist Div., 528 A.2d 590 (Pa. 1987), which excluded such evidence in strict liability cases. But Defendant argued the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014), undermined Lewis by overruling Azzarello v. Black Brothers Co., 391 A.2d 1020 (Pa. 1978), a decision that had taken an extremely narrow view of the relevant facts in strict liability claims under section 402A of the Second Restatement of Torts. Tincher held that section 402A remained Pennsylvania law but “overruled Azzarello’s narrow construction . . . that prevented the jury from considering negligence-related rhetoric and concepts . . . .” Nevertheless, the trial court in Sullivan granted the motion in limine and an appellate court affirmed. Sullivan v. Werner Co., 253 A.3d 730 (Pa. Super. 2021).