Keffer v. Wyeth et al
Case Number: 2:2004cv00692
Filed: July 7, 2004
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: Charleston Office
Presiding Judge: John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 309 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that 177 MOTION by Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Wyeth, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Exclude the General Causation Testimony of Dr. Michael Wertheimer and Dr. John Cronin and REQUEST for a Hearing and 180 M OTION by Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Wyeth, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Exclude the Specific Causation Testimony of Dr. Michael Wertheimer and REQUEST for Hearing are denied without prejudice. Defendants may re-file any specific causation challen ge to Dr. Cronin alone, and any specific causation challenge to Dr. Michaels, according to the following schedule: the 302 MOTION by Rosemary Keffer to Withdraw Expert (Dr. Wertheimer) and Substitute New Expert (Dr. Michaels) is granted to the exte nt provided herein and denied in all other respects; plaintiff is permitted to have Dr. Michaels author and serve supplemental report respecting his opinions as to specific causation in lieu of those previously offered by Dr. Wertheimer by 9/2/2011; defendants are permitted to depose Dr. Michaels respecting his opinions by 9/8/2011; defendants are given leave to renew any Daubert challenges as they relate to Dr. Michaels and Dr. Cronin by 9/12/2011, with any response by plaintiff by 9/16/2011, and any reply by 9/19/2011. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/26/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (lca)
May 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 184 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendants' 111 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; granting defendants' 111 MOTION for partial summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and the claim is dismissed; denying defendants' 116 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on design defect. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 5/23/2011. (cc: attys) (lca)
May 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 172 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying defendants Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Wyeth, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s 156 UNOPPOSED MOTION for hearing on Dispositive Motions to the extent Upjohn seeks a hearing on its motion for summary judgment; denying Upjohn's 121 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 5/13/2011. (cc: attys) (mkw)
April 20, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 153 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 72 MOTION to consolidate for trial. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/20/2011. (cc: attys) (taq)
January 24, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 81 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 72 MOTION by Rosemary Keffer for Consolidation of Cases 2:04-cv-00435, 2:04-cv-00690 and 2:04-cv-00692; the first filed action (2:04-00435) is designated as the lead case. All further filings shall be captioned and docketed in that case. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/24/2011. (cc: attys) (tmh)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Keffer v. Wyeth et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?