Kruszka et al v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
| Alan Kruszka and Candice Kruszka |
| Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation |
| 0:2007cv02793 |
| June 12, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Donovan W. Frank |
| Susan R. Nelson |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 -pip-Diversity-Personal Injury, Product Liability |
| 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
317
ORDER. 1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 211 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows and consistent with the Court's rulings from the bench and its Memorandum Opinion and Order on summary judgment (Doc. No. 202): a. Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from pursuing the depositions of Mr. Osland and McKesson Corporation. Defendants may not take these depositions, however, the Court reserve s the right to order any de bene esse depositions on this matter should they become necessary over the course of trial. b. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED to the extent that Plaintiffs are precluded from arguing the Plaintiff Candice Kruszka (Kruzs ka) received infusions of name brand Aredia after January 2002, or after such time as Aredia was no longer supplied to the Mercy Medical Center in Iowa as reflected in the Mckesson Sales Report. c. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED to the extent tha t the Court deems admissible the McKesson Sales Report attached to the declaration of Steve Lewis as a business record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). d. The Court expressly reserves the right to rule once all submissions are made by the parti es on Defendants Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Doc. No. 310 ). However, irrespective of the Courts ruling on Defendants motion for discovery sanctions pending before the Court, there are evidentiary implications relating to the complaint that was filed by Kruszka against generic pamidronate manufacturers Bedford Laboratories and APP Pharmaceuticals in 2011, In re: Pamidronate Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 09-md-2120 (E.D.N.Y.) (the lawsuit against Generic Manufacturers), that will arise during the trial. (See order for additional information.)(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/23/2014. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
219
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Carol Ann Huff 72 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Dale A. Baur 81 is GRANTED to the extent he seeks to testif y on the following topics: (1) whether the benefits of bisphosphonate therapy outweigh the risks; (2) whether bisphosphonate therapy improves quality of life; and (3) whether the warnings disseminated with Novartiss bisphosphonate drugs were effecti ve, timely, or appropriate; Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Relating to Alleged FDA Compliance and/or Novartiss State of Mind 97 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Defendants Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Suzanne Paris ian 46 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART consistent with the Courts detailed instructions in this Memorandum Opinion; Defendants Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs Expert Dr. Keith Skubitz 54 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Motion to Exc lude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs Expert, Prof. Wayne Ray 56 is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. James Vogel 79 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Dupli cative Defense Experts 43 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT; and Plaintiffs Motion to Unseal the Second Declaration of Robert G. Germany and Exhibits 1 - 182 109 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (See Memorandum Opinion and Order for details.) (Written Opinion.) Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 07/01/2014. (RLB)
|
|
Filing
202
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 116 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. With respect liability for infusions post-January 2002, Defendant's motion is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek liability for the effect of generic drugs on Kruszka, and DENIED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek liability stemming from Aredi's half-life and its effects. b. With respect to Plaintiffs' failure to warn cl aims, Defendants motion is DENIED. c. With respect to Plaintiffs' design defect claim, Defendants motion is GRANTED. d. With respect to Plaintiffs' implied warranty claim, Defendants motion is GRANTED. e. With respect Plaintiffs' claim s for punitive damages, Defendants motion is DENIED. 2. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Causation Testimony) of Plaintiffs' Case-Specific Retained and Non-Retained Expert Witnesses (Doc. No. 94 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIE D IN PART as follows: a. With respect to Dr. Gertz and specific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. b. With respect to Dr. Juhlin and specific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. c. With respect to Dr. Kraut and specific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is DENIED. 3. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Robert Marx (Doc. No. 61 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendant' s motion is DENIED with respect to Dr. Marx's testimony relating to: (1) pre-dental screening; (2) clinical trial patients having BRONJ; (3) causation; and (4) biological mechanisms by which bisphosphonates cause ONJ. b. With respect to Dr. Marx 's testimony regarding dose and duration Defendants motion is GRANTED to the extent his testimony is derived from specific studies and research, and is DENIED to the extent he opines on the results or efficacy of changing dose or duration. c. With respect to Dr. Marx's testimony relating to "bad conduct," Defendant's motion is GRANTED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/19/2014. (BJS)
|
|
Filing
200
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 116 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. With respect liability for infusions post-January 2002, Defendant's motion is GRANTED to the ext ent that Plaintiffs seek liability for the effect of generic drugs on Kruszka, and DENIED to the extent that Plaintiffs seek liability stemming from Aredi's half-life and its effects. b. With respect to Plaintiffs' failure to warn claims, D efendants motion is DENIED. c. With respect to Plaintiffs' design defect claim, Defendants motion is GRANTED. d. With respect to Plaintiffs' implied warranty claim, Defendants motion is GRANTED. e. With respect Plaintiffs' claims for p unitive damages, Defendants motion is DENIED. 2. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Causation Testimony) of Plaintiffs' Case-Specific Retained and Non-Retained Expert Witnesses (Doc. No. 94 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN P ART as follows: a. With respect to Dr. Gertz and specific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. b. With respect to Dr. Juhlin and specific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is GRANTED. c. With respect to Dr. Kraut and sp ecific causation testimony, Defendant's motion is DENIED. 3. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Robert Marx (Doc. No. 61 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Defendant's mot ion is DENIED with respect to Dr. Marx's testimony relating to: (1) pre-dental screening; (2) clinical trial patients having BRONJ; (3) causation; and (4) biological mechanisms by which bisphosphonates cause ONJ. b. With respect to Dr. Marx' ;s testimony regarding dose and duration Defendants motion is GRANTED to the extent his testimony is derived from specific studies and research, and is DENIED to the extent he opines on the results or efficacy of changing dose or duration. c. With respect to Dr. Marx's testimony relating to "bad conduct," Defendant's motion is GRANTED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 5/12/2014. (BJS)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- 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.
