In Re Richardson-Merrell, Inc.

624 F. Supp. 1212, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15917
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedSeptember 17, 1985
DocketMDL 486
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 624 F. Supp. 1212 (In Re Richardson-Merrell, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 624 F. Supp. 1212, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15917 (S.D. Ohio 1985).

Opinion

INDEX

Page Nos.

I. Introduction ......................1215-1221

II. Asserted Errors — Miscellaneous A1-A13 .......................... 1221-1228

III. Asserted Errors Involving Exculsion of Evidence at Trial B1-B15 ...... 1228-1240

IV. Asserted Errors Regarding Discovery C1-C6 ....................... 1240-1242

V. Asserted Errors Involving Evidence Admitted at Trial D1-D4 ......... 1242-1243

VI. Asserted Error in Entering Judgment on the Verdict E ........... 1243-1244

VII. Asserted Error Concerning Jury Instruction on Proximate Cause F .. 1244-1245

VIII. Asserted Error Concerning Jury Requested Jury Instruction Regarding FDA G ............... 1245

IX. Asserted Errors by Minority Members of Lead Counsel Committee H1-H3 .......................... 1245-1246

X. Asserted Errors Raised Only in Plaintiffs Memorandum 11-17 ..... 1246-1249
XI. Conclusion .......................1249
XII. Appendix A: Order No. 1066, Nov. 16, 1983
XIII. Appendix B: Standard Juror Questionnaire
XIV. Appendix C: Bendectin Supplemental Juror Questionnaire
XV. Appendix D: Jury Instructions
XVI. Appendix E: Order No. 2862, Peb. 19, 1985
XVII. Appendix F: In Re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 97 F.R.D. 481
I. INTRODUCTION

CARL B. RUBIN, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Motions of plaintiff for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto and for a New Trial, upon the responses thereto by defendant and upon a hearing held in open court on August 2, 1985.

There is an inherent problem of communication between trial courts and appellate courts. The trial judge's reasons for pro *1216 ceeding as he did are explained to a reviewing court in a secondhand fashion. It is only from the perceptions of the litigating parties that his analysis and reasoning may be determined. All too often, those perceptions are colored by adversarial positions and may or may not reflect accurate reasons for the action taken. It will be the purpose of this Order to deal not only with each issue raised by plaintiffs but also to indicate the thought process and the authority relied upon for the action taken.

The “Bendectin Litigation” in this Court began with an assignment of 47 cases by the Panel on Multi-District Litigation (Panel) in February of 1982. Eighteen months were allotted by the Court for pre-trial discovery. Five attorneys were selected as Lead Counsel in pre-trial order # 1 dated May 5, 1982. (Doc. no. 9A). Between May of 1982, and March of 1985, 582 additional cases were referred by the Panel and 557 cases were filed in the Southern District of Ohio.

A. In an effort to try all common issues of liability, the Court, on November 16, 1983, issued an Order (doc. no. 1066) (See Appendix A) consolidating all cases filed in the Southern District of Ohio, those filed in the Northern District of Ohio and referred by the Panel, and those referred by the Panel whose attorneys wished to be involved. No litigant who had not individually invoked the jurisdiction of this Court was required to participate in the common issues trial unless such litigant through his attorney specifically “opted in” (doc. no. 2277). Such “opt ins” were barred after March 1, 1985 (doc. no. 2866). All cases filed after that date in the Southern District of Ohio or referred by the Panel thereafter were excluded. At the cut-off date of March 1, 1985, 557 cases originating in the Southern District of Ohio and 261 cases which had opted in were thereafter subject to the decision of the jury. 1

Trial was originally scheduled to begin in June of 1984. On June 11,1984, a jury was impaneled. Before actual trial began, an offer of settlement in the total sum of $120 million for all Bendectin cases, both current and future, was made by Defendant Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Merrell). The pendency of that offer caused the Court to conclude that trial should not begin and the impaneled jury was thereupon dismissed.

The conditions of such offer required a certification of a settlement class. That certification was reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and deemed to be beyond the power of this Court. See In re: Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 749 F.2d 300 (6th Cir.1984). This Court thereupon directed that trial begin on February 4,1985, with a new jury.

The large number of cases involved required some unusual procedures. To assist counsel in their jury selection, the standard jury questionnaire form (Appendix B) was supplemented by an additional questionnaire (Appendix C) designed jointly by all counsel. The additional questionnaire was mailed to prospective jurors and returned before the beginning of trial. Based upon an examination of that second questionnaire and by agreement of counsel, some prospective jurors were excused. Those excused were persons employed by Merrell or its associated companies, or persons who were parents of children with birth defects.

Voir dire was conducted by the Court in accordance with the procedure outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(a) and supplemented with questions submitted by counsel. At the conclusion of the voir dire in open court, counsel and the Court retired to Chambers where seven challenges per *1217 side were exercised (T. 52-53). By agreement, six jurors were selected together with six alternates.

It should be noted that an offer had been made by the Court for selection of a jury with special qualifications. As early as May of 1984, it was obvious to the parties that in the first portion of the trial there would be technical and complex testimony by experts on the issue of causation. The Court discussed with counsel selecting a jury composed of persons knowledgeable in the field or a jury of those persons having the most formal education available in the jury panel.

Two terms were used for descriptive purposes. The jury of persons knowledgeable in the field was referred to as a “blue, blue ribbon jury” and those who had the greatest amount of formal education were referred to as a “blue ribbon jury.” Neither of these concepts is recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Only by agreement of all parties could either have been used. The following excerpts from a conference held May 11, 1984 may be instructive. At page 9 of the transcript, the following appears:

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

Related

Daniels v. Northcoast Anesthesia Providers, Inc.
2018 Ohio 2132 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
Doctors Company v. Plummer
210 So. 3d 711 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
People v. Hard
2014 COA 132 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2014)
Green v. North Arundel Hospital Association, Inc.
785 A.2d 361 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
BD v. DeBuono
193 F.R.D. 117 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Kahanek v. Rogers
12 S.W.3d 501 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
In Re Dow Corning Corp.
211 B.R. 545 (E.D. Michigan, 1997)
Cary by and Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc.
1997 OK 60 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
Baerwald v. Flores
1997 NMCA 002 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1996)
United States v. Bertoli
854 F. Supp. 975 (D. New Jersey, 1994)
Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
959 F.2d 1349 (Sixth Circuit, 1992)
Bremner v. Charles
821 P.2d 1080 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)
Amy Deluca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
911 F.2d 941 (Third Circuit, 1990)
Turpin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
736 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Kentucky, 1990)
Cosgrove v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
788 P.2d 1293 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
624 F. Supp. 1212, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-richardson-merrell-inc-ohsd-1985.