Knight et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
| Claude R. Knight, Claudia Stevens and Betty Erelene Knight |
| Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. |
| 3:2015cv06424 |
| May 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Huntington Office |
| Cabell |
| Robert C. Chambers |
| Personal Injury: Health Care |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
259
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 225 RENEWED MOTION by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, MOTION for a New Trial. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 5/15/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
|
|
Filing
158
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Defendant's 148 MOTION to Preclude Argument Based on Undisclosed Medical Records. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 10/2/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
|
|
Filing
139
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 136 MOTION for a Protective Order and Objection to Defendant's Cross-Notice of Deposition. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 8/29/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
|
|
Filing
122
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 47 Omnibus Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiff's General Experts only with respect to the exclusion of testimony of Plaintiff's experts regarding the inference of BI's in tent or motive based upon its internal document, and denying the remainder of the motion; denying Defendant's 64 Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony, and Argument on Financial Metrics to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to off er evidence or argument regarding any actual or perceived economic benefits or disadvantages in Defendant's development and sale of Pradaxa, and directing the parties to obtain leave of the Court before offering evidence of Defendant's prof itability or financial condition unrelated to the development and sale of Pradaxa; granting Plaintiff's 73 Omnibus Motion in Limine with regard to the exclusion of both (1) Defendant's presenting "good," charitable, or other act s indicative of corporate responsibility, or a general good reputation, that are unrelated to Pradaxa, and (2) Defendant's characterization that the FDA has affirmatively made a decision regarding the appropriateness, need, or lack thereof, for dose adjustment or monitoring, and denying the remainder of the motion, but will permit Plaintiffs to raise specific objections to the use "FDA label" or similar references during the trial; granting Defendant's 63 Motion in Limine N o. 1 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony, and Argument Regarding Alleged Spoliation Issues, MDL Discovery Sanctions, and Other Litigation with regard to the previous issues, findings, and sanctions related to discovery in previous matters, but denying as moot the portion of the motion that seeks to exclude the discussion of other litigation generally; and denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Spoliation Finding and Adverse Inference Charge. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 6/19/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
|
|
Filing
118
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting Defendant's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment only with regard to Plaintiffs' claims for defective design and breach of implied warranty of fitness, and denying the remainder of Defendant's Motion f or Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiffs' 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying Defendant's 45 Motion to Exclude Case-Specific Testimony of Dr. Hazem Ashhab; denying Defendant's 68 Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Evide nce and Argument Regarding Plasma Concentration Levels; denying Defendant's 65 Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Evidence, Testimony, or Argument Related to Foreign Regulatory Actions, Foreign Labeling Materials and Company Core Data Sheet; an d denying Defendant's 66 Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Regarding Lack of Reversal Agent to the extent that Plaintiffs' warnings claims allege that BI inadequately warned that no reversal agent existed, and denying as moot the remainder of the motion. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 5/31/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
