Category: Evidence

Third Circuit Confirms Correlation Still Does Not Prove Causation

Share

A recent Third Circuit decision is a useful and quotable reminder that temporal correlation is not enough to prove causation.

Causation is an indispensable element of any product liability action. It is the same in pharmaceutical third-party payor (TPP) class actions, where it is often the element most likely to defeat class certification. Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs often employ creative workarounds in an effort to sidestep obvious causation problems. In In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 2093904 (3d Cir. July 21, 2026), the Third Circuit made clear that there are no shortcuts.

According to the plaintiff TPPs, the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer had marketed the medication at issue as not only treating diabetes but offering cardiovascular benefits too. The plaintiffs claimed that the promotional campaign caused physicians to prescribe the medication at inflated rates, forcing the plaintiffs to reimburse prescriptions they would not otherwise have covered.

Continue reading “Third Circuit Confirms Correlation Still Does Not Prove Causation”

Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs

Share

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning paraquat-based herbicides — In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004 (S.D. Ill.) — has become a focal point in mass torts. Thousands of plaintiffs allege that exposure to paraquat caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease (PD). The litigation has featured high-stakes scientific disputes, key defense wins, a master settlement agreement, and now Case Management Order No. 25 (CMO 25, 2026 WL 1707147), a Lone Pine order with important implications for nonsettling plaintiffs and a potential roadmap for effective case management in other MDLs.

In April 2024, the MDL court excluded the plaintiffs’ sole expert on general causation. That ruling left the plaintiffs unable to establish general causation, and the court accordingly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. But that ruling only formally applied to the four bellwether cases; while the bellwether plaintiffs’ inability to establish general causation portended problems for every plaintiff in the MDL, the litigation continued.

Continue reading “Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs”

In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Fall 2025

Share

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Register to Do Business, Register to Be Sued? Illinois’ New Jurisdictional Trap for Toxic Tort Litigants

By Elizabeth C. Christen, Jenna Seiler, Natalie Abdou & Bryan D. Pasciak

For companies operating nationwide, rules governing where they can be sued are consequential — especially in high-exposure toxic tort litigation. Illinois’ enactment of SB 328 raises the stakes in these cases even more, conferring general jurisdiction over companies who register or merely transact business in Illinois.

Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered

By Eric M. Friedman

Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” without passing muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp. (7th Cir. 1999). A recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina shows this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.

No Defect, No Negligence: Lessons from Rudzinskas v. Retractable Technologies, Inc.

By Alena Markley

A summary judgment from the Southern District of Georgia shows the critical role of defect evidence (or lack thereof) in negligence claims involving medical devices. In Rudzinskas, allegations that a medical device malfunctioned were not sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on negligent manufacturing and failure-to-warn claims.

Significant Drug & Device Developments of 2025

Share

As we welcome the new year, it is time to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments in the drug and device space in 2025.

1. Navigating a New Skepticism in Science

Not long ago, the average American likely could not name the U.S. secretary of health and human services. Yet, following this year’s change in administration and major shakeup in the regulatory landscape, skepticism in science has become the elephant in the room for anyone working in the drug and device sphere. Practitioners should start thinking about how to present scientific evidence to juries in 2026 as the old norms may no longer apply.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Summer 2025

Share

Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.

Tort Reform Is Top of Mind in 2025: Legislative Updates in Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas

By Elizabeth A. Wurm, Jenna Seiler & Elizabeth C. Christen

Some states that are home to “Judicial Hellhole” venues, often known for producing nuclear verdicts, have rallied for successful tort reform. In the most recent state legislative sessions, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas implemented tort reform bills which may serve to neutralize the nuclear verdicts coming out of their courts.

 

Message Received — Delaware Follows Federal Rule of Evidence 702

By Eric M. Friedman & Emma DeLaney Strenski

The Delaware Superior Court took the mass tort world by surprise with its refusal to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts’ causation opinions in the Zantac litigation. But the Delaware Supreme Court granted the defendants’ request for interlocutory appeal and has reversed the Superior Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.

 

ChatGPT As Your New Testifying Expert Under Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707? Maybe Not.

By Nikolas G. Spilson & Eric M. Friedman

Tools that can reduce the time and cost of litigation have long been in high demand by both clients and counsel. But the tool must be fit for its purpose, and tools that generate evidence or other outputs that will be submitted to the court must pass judicial scrutiny. One of the newer fights concerns the admissibility of machine-generated “expert” opinions.

Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered

Share

Even “[a] supremely qualified expert cannot waltz into the courtroom and render opinions” unless those opinions pass muster under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Clark v. Takata Corp., 192 F.3d 750, 759 n.5 (7th Cir. 1999). As a recent case from the Eastern District of North Carolina illustrates, this principle is at play not only when critiquing an expert’s methodology, but also the expert’s expertise.

In Williams v. Sig Sauer, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2025 WL 2643400 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2025), the plaintiff was an “enforcer” for his motorcycle club who “protect[ed]” and “monitor[ed]” the club members. He alleged that his pistol discharged and injured him while he was adjusting his position on his motorcycle. In support of his product liability claims against the manufacturer of the pistol, he proffered two expert witnesses: a gunsmith and a mechanical engineer. The defendant moved to exclude both experts and filed a motion for summary judgment.

Continue reading “Close, But Not Quite: Eastern District of North Carolina Excludes Experts Whose General Expertise Does Not Enable Specific Opinions Offered”