In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig.

IN RE: TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01748

MDL 2545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

November 2, 2017

JUDGE MATTHEW F. KENNELLY

This Document Relates to:

Konrad v. AbbVie Inc.,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00966

DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR A NEW TRIAL OR REMITTITUR, AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2

I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FAVOR OF ABBVIE UNDER RULE 50(b) BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT ......................................... 2

A. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A HEART ATTACK BUT FOR ANDROGEL ........................................................................ 3

B. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE LABEL WAS INADEQUATE OR THAT ANY ADDITIONAL WARNING WOULD HAVE PREVENTED HIS HEART ATTACK ................................................................... 4

1. Plaintiff Failed to Present Substantial Evidence That the Label Was Defective and Rendered AndroGel "Unreasonably Dangerous" ................................................................................................. 4

2. Plaintiff Failed to Present Substantial Evidence That Any Lack of Warning Caused His Heart Attack .............................................................. 6

C. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT ABBVIE MADE A FALSE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACT, OR THAT ANY SUCH STATEMENT CAUSED HIS HEART ATTACK .......................................................................... 7

1. No Substantial Evidence of a False Statement ........................................... 7

2. No Substantial Evidence of Reliance on Any Misrepresentation ............... 9

D. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY CONCEALMENT OR INTENT TO DECEIVE .............................................................................................................. 11

E. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ..................................... 12

II. ALTERNATIVELY, THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 59(a) ........................................................................................... 15

A. A NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED DUE TO VERDICT INCONSISTENCY ................................................................................................ 15

B. A NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED DUE TO ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................... 16

1. The Court Erred by Instructing on 'Long-Form' Causation ..................... 17

2. The Court Erred in the FDA Instruction ................................................... 17

3. The Court Erred by Instructing On Illinois' Punitive Damages Law ....... 18

C. A NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED BECAUSE OF EVIDENTIARY ERRORS .................................................................................... 19

1. The Court Erred by Admitting Testimony That Ads Were "Off Label" ........................................................................................................ 19

2. The Court Erred by Admitting Evidence of AbbVie's Sales/Profits ........ 20

3. The Court Erred by Admitting Testimony Regarding FDA Resources .................................................................................................. 21

4. The Court Erred by Admitting Dr. Kessler's "Implied Benefits" Testimony ................................................................................................. 21

D. A NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ................................................. 22

III. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD REDUCE THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD PURSUANT TO RULE 59(e) BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATES STATE LAW .......... 22CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 25TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CASESAdkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ....................................................................................... 16Bammerlin v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 30 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 19Bearden v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 2010 WL 1223936 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 24, 2010) ..................................................................... 12BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ........................................................................................................... 14, 23Boyd v. Illinois State Police, 384 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................... 16BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Res., LLC, 697 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ..................................................................................... 19Buckman v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001) ................................................................................................................. 20In re C.R. Bard, 948 F. Supp. 2d 589 (S.D.W. Va. 2013) .................................................................................. 19Collins v. Danek Med., Inc., 1999 WL 644813 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 23, 1999) ......................................................................... 6Contini v. Hyundai Motor Co., 876 F. Supp. 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) .......................................................................................... 20Cross v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 2011 WL 2517211 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2011) ......................................................................... 20Daly v. Wacker-Chemie AG, 2014 WL 3810595 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 1, 2014) ........................................................................ 16Deloughery v. City of Chicago, 422 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 15, 16In re Depakote, 87 F. Supp. 3d 916 (S.D. Ill. 2015) .......................................................................................... 17Flax v. DaimlerChrysler, 272 S.W.3d 521 (Tenn. 2008) .................................................................................................... 5Florek v. Vill. of Mundelein, Ill., 649 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 2Fornoff v. Parke Davis & Co., 434 N.E.2d 793 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) ........................................................................................ 13In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prod. Liab. Litig., 951 F. Supp. 2d 695 (D.N.J. 2013) .......................................................................................... 18In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F. Supp. 2d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ........................................................................................ 8Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................................... 6, 19Gentry v. Hershey Co., 687 F. Supp. 2d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2010) .................................................................................... 5Georges v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2012 WL 9064768 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) ........................................................................... 19Goins v. Clorox Co., 926 F.2d 559 (6th Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................... 5Gray v. Hoffmann-La Roche, 82 F. App'x 639 (10th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 20Hagen v. Richardson-Merrell, 697 F. Supp. 334 (N.D. Ill. 1988) ............................................................................................ 23Harden v. Danek Med., Inc., 985 S.W.2d 449 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) ..................................................................................... 6Hazelwood v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 450 N.E.2d 1199 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983) ...................................................................................... 25Heitz v. Hogan, 480 N.E.2d 185 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985) ........................................................................................ 17Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) .................................................................................................... 7Hollymatic Corp. v. Holly Sys., Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1366 (N.D. Ill. 1985) ............................................................................................ 8Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Joliet v. Schneider, 483 N.E.2d 1225 (Ill. 1985) ..................................................................................................... 12Honda Motor v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 21Huddleston v. Harper, 2015 WL 3964791 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 2015) ................................................................ 12Johnson v. Volvo Truck Corp., 2010 WL 55317 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 4, 2010) ................................................................................ 4Kelly v. Nordyne, Inc., 2008 WL 11342578 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 8, 2008) ........................................................................ 7Kibbler v. Richards Med. Co., 1992 WL 233027 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 1992)...