The Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: How to Preserve Your Client’s Defenses After a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court

Defense attorneys involved in California multi-defendant product liability lawsuits are familiar with the challenge of properly balancing the need to preserve their clients’ defenses with the strategic importance of maintaining cooperation among co-defendants.  In many cases, co-defendants’ interests are aligned, and they find the strategic benefits of cooperation outweigh any benefits of finger-pointing amongst one another.  Indeed, co-defendant infighting is risky on several fronts—it can help the plaintiffs, increase defense costs, create animosity among possible business partners, and chill future cooperation with defendants who regularly blame their co-defendants.  Inevitably, however, cases arise that involve a culpable co-defendant and a client wants to preserve its ability to attribute fault to the co-defendant at trial.  This issue becomes complex and the specific language of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(l) comes into play when the co-defendant seeks no-fault summary judgment.

Section 437c(l) operates to limit the extent to which defendants can attribute legal fault at trial to defendants who were dismissed through no-fault summary judgment.  Specifically, Section 437c(l) provides that “if a motion for summary judgment is granted on the basis that the defendant was without fault, no other defendant during trial, over plaintiff’s objection, may attempt to attribute fault to, or comment on, the absence or involvement of the defendant who was granted the motion.”  Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(l).  In other words, remaining defendants cannot assert the empty chair defense to attribute legal fault to co-defendants who obtained summary judgment.

Continue reading “The Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: How to Preserve Your Client’s Defenses After a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court”

FDA Releases Draft Guidance for Sponsors on How to Comply with Study Data Standards When Submitting RWD-Sourced Study Data

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a draft guidance titled Data Standards for Drug and Biological Product Submissions Containing Real-World Data on October 21, 2021. The guidance provides the Agency’s thoughts on how sponsors can comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) when submitting “certain” applications that contain study data derived from real-world data (RWD) sources. The FDA acknowledges that its current study data standards do not necessarily reflect a process derived from RWD sources. However, sponsors will need to convert RWD into established study data standards when submitting this information as part of a regulatory application (a process called “mapping”).

For context, study data standards are documented guidelines to help with the exchange of clinical and nonclinical study data between computer systems. They are used to provide a consistent framework for organizing study data (such as templates for datasets, standard names for variables, how to do calculations with common variables, and so on).

Continue reading “FDA Releases Draft Guidance for Sponsors on How to Comply with Study Data Standards When Submitting RWD-Sourced Study Data”

FDA Posts Draft Guidance for Pharma Companies, Sponsors, and Researchers on Using Real-World Data from Health Records in Clinical Studies

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft guidance for pharmaceutical companies, sponsors, and researchers sourcing Real World Data (RWD) from health records. As the FDA’s first attempt to define guidelines on sourcing RWD, the draft document provides insight into the FDA’s current thinking on the approach that companies should use to support regulatory filings for medications.

The guidance references the Framework for Real World Evidence Program, released in December 2018. The Framework is designed to regulate uses of RWD and Real Word Evidence (RWE), which are used by life sciences companies to investigate how medicines perform beyond clinical trials, and to back up clinical trial results. This draft guidance is the first of the series that have been promised by the FDA to develop the Framework. More information about the FDA Framework can be found on our blog here.

Continue reading “FDA Posts Draft Guidance for Pharma Companies, Sponsors, and Researchers on Using Real-World Data from Health Records in Clinical Studies”

510(k) Clearance Precludes Punitive Damages in Arizona

We know the plaintiffs’ bar’s feelings about the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process. They tell the jury and the court it is antiquated. They say it does not constitute a finding of safety or efficacy. They do all they can to paint the FDA’s regulatory clearance process as meaningless and not worthy of consideration by a judge or jury. Such arguments may have some vitality in some jurisdictions. But, as we learned twice again in the last month, not in Arizona.

Back in 2012, the Arizona legislature passed a law stating that a manufacturer may not be held liable for exemplary or punitive damages if “[t]he product alleged to have caused the harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold or represented . . . according to the terms of an approval, conditional approval, clearance, license or similar determination of a government agency.” A.R.S. § 12-689(A)(1). The statute broadly defined “manufacturer” to include those engaged in designing, manufacturing, or formulating a product. A.R.S. § 12-689(D)(3). And it further defined “government agency” to mean any federal or Arizona agency with authority “to issue rules, regulations, orders or standards concerning the design, manufacture, packaging, labeling or advertising of a product[.]” A.R.S. § 12-689(D)(2).

Continue reading “510(k) Clearance Precludes Punitive Damages in Arizona”

FDA Finds Certain E-Cigarette Products “Appropriate for the Protection of Public Health” but Not “FDA Approved”

On October 12, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued orders granting R.J. Reynolds (RJR) Vapor Company approval to market three of its electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) products – the Vuse Solo ENDS e-cigarette and accompanying tobacco-flavored pods.  In issuing the orders, FDA found “that the marketing of these products is appropriate for the protection of public health.”  However, FDA also stated that its orders do not mean “these products are safe or ‘FDA approved.’”  See FDA Permits Marketing of E-Cigarette Products, Marking First Authorization of Its Kind by the Agency | FDA.

Although ENDS products, such as e-cigarettes, have been on the market since the mid-2000s, this is the first time FDA has authorized the marketing of specific ENDS products through the Premarket Tobacco Product Application pathway.

Continue reading “FDA Finds Certain E-Cigarette Products “Appropriate for the Protection of Public Health” but Not “FDA Approved””

Treating Physician’s Informed Consent Process and Decision-Making in Device Selection Lead to Partial Summary Judgment for Device Manufacturer

A series of recent rulings out of the Southern District of Texas in an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter case reflect how well-planned discovery can lead to a successful multipronged summary judgment motion and can effectively prune a plaintiff’s ambitious product defect claims. Conn v. C.R. Bard, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-298.

In 2006, plaintiff’s physicians discovered a blood clot in his inferior vena cava. An IVC filter was inserted to prevent the blood clot from causing potentially fatal further injury. Because of plaintiff’s young age, the physician chose a removable filter. Plaintiff reported abdominal pain just four days after the IVC filter was placed. The blood clot was found to have moved and extended through and above the recently placed filter, and the physicians initiated anticoagulant therapy.

Continue reading “Treating Physician’s Informed Consent Process and Decision-Making in Device Selection Lead to Partial Summary Judgment for Device Manufacturer”