BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC

E.D. Pennsylvania

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC

DecidedSeptember 30, 2019

Docket2:13-cv-04663

StatusUnknown

This text of BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC (BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, (E.D. Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD : CIVIL ACTION ASSOCIATION, et al. : : No. 13-4663 v. : : GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s (GSK) “Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Philip Russ, Drs. David Kessler, Matthew Perri, Stephen Schondelmeyer, and Rena Conti,” the briefing thereon, and the parties’ presentations at the March 12, 2019 oral argument on the Motion, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED the Motion (Document 202) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Dr. David Kessler shall be prohibited from defining “materiality” or referring to certain cGMP violations as having a “material impact”; 2. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer shall be excluded from testifying at trial; and 3. The balance of the Motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave to Submit Two September 3, 2019 Decisions in National Prescription Opiate Litigation as Supplemental Authority” (Document 291) is DENIED.1

1 On September 6, 2019, Plaintiffs moved to submit two rulings issued on September 3, 2019, in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, No. 17-2804 (N.D. Ohio), in support of their opposition to GSK’s motion to exclude. GSK filed an opposition to the motion on September 10, 2019, asserting the proffered opinions have no bearing on the instant motion. The Court declines to supplement the record with the proffered non-binding opinions. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez . Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

motion is denied. Nevertheless, the Court has taken judicial notice of the opinions in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation. See Schuylkill Health Sys. v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 12-7065, 2014 WL 3805466, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2014) (taking judicial notice of opinions filed outside of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD : CIVIL ACTION ASSOCIATION, et al. : : No. 13-4663 v. : : GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2019, upon consideration of Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s (GSK) “Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Philip Russ, Drs. David Kessler, Matthew Perri, Stephen Schondelmeyer, and Rena Conti,” the briefing thereon, and the parties’ presentations at the March 12, 2019 oral argument on the Motion, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED the Motion (Document 202) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Dr. David Kessler shall be prohibited from defining “materiality” or referring to certain cGMP violations as having a “material impact”; 2. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as Dr. Stephen Schondelmeyer shall be excluded from testifying at trial; and 3. The balance of the Motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Leave to Submit Two September 3, 2019 Decisions in National Prescription Opiate Litigation as Supplemental Authority” (Document 291) is DENIED.1

1 On September 6, 2019, Plaintiffs moved to submit two rulings issued on September 3, 2019, in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, No. 17-2804 (N.D. Ohio), in support of their opposition to GSK’s motion to exclude. GSK filed an opposition to the motion on September 10, 2019, asserting the proffered opinions have no bearing on the instant motion. The Court declines to supplement the record with the proffered non-binding opinions. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez . Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

motion is denied. Nevertheless, the Court has taken judicial notice of the opinions in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation. See Schuylkill Health Sys. v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. 12-7065, 2014 WL 3805466, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2014) (taking judicial notice of opinions filed outside of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-cross-blue-shield-association-v-glaxosmithkline-llc-paed-2019.