UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF … · 3/14/2017 · Master Docket Case No....

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN RE: TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT

THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION

MDL No. 2545

This Document Relates to All Cases

Master Docket Case No. 1:14-cv-01748

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR MARCH 16, 2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The Court directed counsel to file this joint report regarding the status of the parties’

discussions, agreements and disagreements on the proposed agenda items for the March 16, 2017

case management conference.

I. Product Liability Cases

A. Update on AbbVie

1. Sequence of the AbbVie Bellwether Trials – The PSC and AbbVie

submitted their Joint Submission Regarding AbbVie-only Bellwether Trial Sequence on February

27, 2017 and are prepared to discuss their positions at the case management conference.

Once the trial sequence is set, the parties request that the Court set a date for the Final

Pretrial Conference in each case so that the Parties can establish and meet the dates for the events

contained in Your Honor’s Standing Joint Pretrial Order.

The parties understand that per the Court’s standing order, if we assume a Final Pretrial

Conference is held the week of May 22, 2017, the Joint Pretrial Order would be due the week of

May 15th, making Plaintiffs’ exhibit list and deposition designations due the week of April 27th

and Defendant’s due the week of May 1st. However, given the number and pace of trials scheduled,

AbbVie proposes scheduling a teleconference with the Court within the next week or so talk about

Case: 1:14-cv-01748 Document #: 1786 Filed: 03/14/17 of 21 PageID #:27411

2

steps that might be taken to make the pretrial process as efficient and expedited as possible,

including an earlier exchange of deposition designations and exhibit lists applicable to all cases.

AbbVie also believes that the generic portions (exhibit lists and deposition designations with

respect to the Defendant’s conduct) of the Joint Pretrial Order should apply to all of the bellwether

trials, leaving only case-specific portions to follow before each individual case. AbbVie

respectfully suggests it likely will not feasible for either the parties or the Court to address these

matters for each case separately once the trials start in June. The PSC does not believe many

aspects of a Joint Pretrial Order for a given trial can be “generic” as AbbVie advances above, but

instead the PSC submits that each joint Pretrial Order for each bellwether case should be crafted

on its own and have its own respective deadlines for the trial counsel in each case, which will be

triggered off of the date for the Final Pretrial Conference in each case. Of course, if “generic”

issues or rulings are decided in a prior Joint Pretrial order, where applicable, they should hopefully

be able to be applied to future Joint Pretrial Orders. The PSC is agreeable to discussing all of the

above in conference call with the Court in the coming weeks.

AbbVie is also requesting a hearing date for the pending summary judgment and Daubert

motions. The PSC does not believe a hearing is necessary for either the pending summary

judgment or Daubert motions, unless the Court desires one.

2. Report on AbbVie's request for Sanctions in Rowley & Garcia –

PSC's Position

The PSC has opposed AbbVie’s efforts at sanctions. Following the initial hearing on the

matter, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer over resolving the issue generally in either,

both or neither of the two cases – Rowley and Garcia. The parties met and conferred privately and

this issue has also been the subject of conversations with the Court during a pre-conference in-


3

chambers meeting. Following this, AbbVie, requested that plaintiffs agree to update their medical

information and that plaintiff counsel agree to actively litigate their cases. The PSC was not

opposed to this request in general. However, AbbVie then presented the PSC leadership with a

proposed Lone Pine Order that embodied far more than plaintiff counsel supplementing access to

medical records.

The PSC rejected this immediately.

To the extent AbbVie wishes to continue to discuss resolution of the sanctions issue in the

two cases (which both involved the same lawyer), the plaintiffs are prepared to do. The PSC is

also willing to discuss a process whereby plaintiffs agree to update medical information and

authorizations for access to medical records. However, the PSC strongly opposes the request by

AbbVie (which has been bootstrapped on to the discussion surrounding the resolution of the

sanctions issue) as justification for a Lone Pine Order. To the extent AbbVie maintains any request

for a Lone Pine Order in the Joint Report and maintains the position that a Lone Pine Order be a

condition of any resolution of the sanctions issue in the Rowley and Garcia cases the PSC simply

cannot agree to a resolution that includes a Lone Pine Order and would respectfully request the

opportunity to brief same.

AbbVie’s Position:

AbbVie moved for sanctions in Garcia and Frost not just because of Plaintiffs’ actions (or

more appropriately inactions) in those cases, but because those cases raised some real concern of

a more systemic failure by the thousands of Plaintiffs in this MDL to meaningfully exercise due

diligence in filing and maintaining their claims. To refresh the Court’s recollection, 11 days before

Plaintiffs’ expert reports were due in the AbbVie bellwether cases, the PSC informed the Court

and AbbVie that Plaintiff Garcia was unable to find an expert to testify to causation and that


4

therefore, the case could not proceed. This was 22 months after filing his complaint and after

completing fact discovery. In addition, again 19 months after filing his complaint and after the

completion of fact discovery, receipt of Plaintiff Rowley’s case-specific expert report in October

2016 was the first notice provided to AbbVie that Plaintiff Rowley had suffered a second blood

clot injury 5 months earlier, which Plaintiff is alleging is causally related to his use of AndroGel.

The Court has already determined that these events warrant sanctions, and it is only the scope of

the remedy that remains to be determined. Tr. of Proceedings at 46-47, Dec. 15, 2016, ECF No.

1658 (Garcia to be dismissed, what remains is any additional sanction); id. at 64-65 (delay in

Rowley not justified and not harmless, sanctionable conduct under Rule 37).

While AbbVie has incurred significant costs in these 2 cases, see Defs.’ Sub. in Further

Supp. of Mots. for Sanctions, Garcia v. AbbVie Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01086 (N.D. Ill. Feb.

4, 2015), ECF No. 18; Defs.’ Sub. in Further Supp. of Mots. for Sanctions, Rowley v. AbbVie Inc.

et al., Case No. 15-cv-02760 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2015), ECF No. 18, it is not interested in

bankrupting the individual Plaintiffs’ counsel. Rather, AbbVie is primarily focused on how the

examples of these cases can be used to take real steps to ensure Plaintiffs and their counsel exercise

appropriate measures before filing claims and thereafter in maintaining them.

The Court need not look beyond the bellwether cases to find yet another example of

Plaintiffs’ lack of diligence. It was nearly 1 year ago that the Court admonished Plaintiffs for

failing to exercise due diligence in obtaining pertinent background information about and from

their clients. Six of the original 32 bellwether cases had to be stricken from the pool because their

Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”) failed to identify usage of other TRT products. See Tr. of Proceedings

at 14, Apr. 13, 2016, ECF No. 1246 (“How is this anything other than a failure of due diligence


5

on the part of the plaintiffs’ attorneys in those individual cases?”). As the Court acknowledged at

that time, it is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s responsibility to investigate the claims of their clients:

This was a case in which the lawyer who filed the lawsuit, for

whatever reason, didn't know what his or her client had done. There

is no way to explain that other than, A, a failure of due diligence on

the lawyer's part; or, B, client's bad memory; or, C, the client not

telling the truth. There is no other way to explain it. I've racked my

brain to think of all the possibilities.

I mean, rule number one, okay -- I used to practice law. Guess what?

Rule number one, client never tells you the truth. You assume they

don't. You assume they don't. Anything they tell you, you have to

prove. Okay?

Id. at 17-18. Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot play a passive role in the filing of lawsuits or in the

discovery that is necessary as the litigation progresses. They must not only communicate with

their clients, they must review and evaluate the medical evidence, and they must update their PFS

accordingly. Whether it is essential causation evidence at the outset of the case, as in Garcia, or

obligatory ongoing investigation, as in Rowley, AbbVie should not be forced to litigate these cases

when Plaintiffs have neglected their duties.1

Garcia and Rowley are specific examples of Plaintiffs’ lack of adequate diligence in

investigating and maintaining their cases – an obligation that cannot be suspended simply because

this is a mass tort, coordinated proceeding. The volume of cases pending cannot be a means for

individual Plaintiffs to escape participating in the litigation. See In re Mentor Corp. Obtape

Transobturator Sling Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2004 4:08-MD-2004 (CDL), 2016 WL 4705807, at

*1 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 7, 2016) (“Some lawyers seem to think that their case will be swept into the

MDL where a global settlement will be reached, allowing them to obtain a recovery without the

individual merit of their case being scrutinized as closely as it would if it proceeded as a separate

1 That the issue extends beyond the bellwether pool is evidenced by the fact that of the 3,800 PFS AbbVie

has received to date, 2,300 are at least 1 year old.


6

individual action. This attitude explains why many cases are filed with … so little pre-filing

preparation that counsel apparently has no idea whether or how she will prove causation.”). What

Garcia, in particular, demonstrates is “cases are more likely to result in dismissal once discovery

focuses on issues related to causation.” In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 06 MD 1789(JFK),

2012 WL 5877418, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012). If the bellwether pool is representative of the

litigation and 1 in 8 cases suffers from serious evidentiary deficiencies, there are likely many more

“spurious or meritless cases [] lurking” in the thousands currently pending. Id. We are at the point

in this litigation, before additional waves of discovery or ultimate remand, where it is time to find

out. Further, incomplete, inaccurate, and outdated information about the individual cases makes

it impossible for the Court, AbbVie, or any other Defendant to assess this docket’s inventory,

which among other things is a significant limitation on meaningful settlement discussions. Id. (if

settlement reached, “the elimination of spurious claims will ensure that only plaintiffs with

meritorious cases are compensated”; if remand occurs, eliminating such claims “will ensure that

the home districts receive only viable cases”).

These are the significant issues that AbbVie seeks to remedy through its sanctions motions

and is open to discussing how best to do so. In that spirit, AbbVie proposed adding to the PFS a

certification that Plaintiff’s counsel has obtained causation expert support for each case; entry of

an order requiring supplementation of all previously served PFS; and reinforcing existing

supplementation obligations by requiring Plaintiffs’ counsel’s participation in ensuring the

accuracy and completeness of PFS information. In addition, AbbVie proposed a modest monetary

sanction of $15,000 (or merely $7,500 for each case), an amount large enough to be meaningful

and act as a deterrent.


7

B. Update on Besins: Besins is in the process of producing the agreed upon custodial

files.

C. Update on Auxilium

1. Status of Discovery: The parties have been working collaboratively to move the

Auxilium litigation forward pursuant to and consistent with CMO 19A and CMO 31. To date, the

PSC has requested production from 60 custodial files. Auxilium has made complete or substantial

production of documents from the requested files with its most recent rolling production occurring

on March 3, 2017.

On March 7, 2017, following input from the parties, the Court entered CMO 37A, and

ordered a non-expert fact discovery deadline for Testim related claims of July 31, 2017. Non-

party fact discovery is to be completed by August 17, 2017 for any bellwether trial related non-

party discovery. The discovery deadline imposed for Auxilium’s non-Testim related testosterone

products (Testopel and Striant), is July 1, 2018. Pursuant to CMO 37A, the Court also provided

the PSC the opportunity to conduct necessary discovery relating to data loss during the transition

of data from Auxilium to Endo following the acquisition of Auxilium in early 2015. The PSC has

received a report from Auxilium and is considering its options and will discuss various methods

of relief and redress with Auxilium's counsel and report to the Court in advance of the April Case

Management Conference or file a motion as may be need.

As of March 8, 2017, Auxilium has produced 16 former or current employees for

deposition, and 6 more are currently scheduled through May 2017. The parties are actively

working to coordinate the scheduling of 1 additional requested depositions. The depositions thus

far have all been cross-noticed and have been attended by counsel representing the state court

plaintiffs, with their participation in the depositions pursuant to CMO 21.


8

2. Bellwether Process: Pursuant to CMO 31, Auxilium and the PSC have each

selected four bellwether candidates from a randomly selected pool of sixty plaintiffs with claims

relating to their use of Testim gel. The parties have commenced core discovery, and it is

anticipated that permitted bellwether core discovery depositions will begin late March 2017, and

will continue through the core-discovery period to May 1, 2017. The finalized Supplemental

Defendant Fact Sheets, that will be applicable to the bellwether cases, will be produced on March

14, 2017. Pursuant to CMO 31, PSC and Counsel for the State Court Litigation against Auxilium

in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia are working in coordination with the understanding

that the first of the Auxilium MDL bellwether cases will be tried in advance of the cases pending

before Judge Rau and Judge Younge in that Court.

D. Update on Eli Lilly & Co.

1. Bellwether Process: Depositions are continuing as to the bellwether cases

and will be continuing over the next few months. The parties have also finalized a Supplemental

Defendant Fact Sheet that is applicable to the bellwether cases.

2. Status of Pending Discovery: The PSC continues to take depositions of

Lilly employees. To date, the PSC has completed nine depositions of Lilly employees with

additional depositions that are in the process of being scheduled. The PSC has also taken the

deposition of one Acrux employee and has requested additional custodial files related to other

Acrux employees.

Moreover, the parties have reached an agreement that proposes to extend the fact discovery

end dates for Lilly and Acrux and serves to set a separate discovery end date for third party

discovery. The parties anticipate presenting this agreement for the Court’s review at or before the


9

case management conference. However, as previously noted, this proposed agreement will not

impact any other applicable deadlines

E. Update on Endo: Status of Discovery: To date, the PSC requested for production

from 40 custodial files, including the most request on February 5, 2017 for 6 additional custodial

files. To date, Endo has produced custodial files for 32 of the first 34 requested custodians. It

appears 2 of the requested custodians were never employed by, or worked for Endo; Endo is

currently working on the next request and notes that 3 of the 6 requested custodians were also

never employed by, or worked for, Endo. In response to the PSC’s initial request for 3 Endo

witnesses to depose, Endo has produced 2 former or current employees for deposition, and 1 more

is currently scheduled to be deposed next week. On February 3, 2017, the PSC requested dates for

another 8 Endo witnesses to depose. Endo has not proposed a date for any of these witnesses yet,

but is working to obtain dates for these witnesses (7 of who are former employees, including 1

former employee who Endo claims is currently serving overseas in the Peace Corps and is

presumably unavailable for deposition at this time, but the PSC will address this deponent’s

deposition logistics with Endo’s counsel in the coming weeks).

F. Update on Actavis

1. Bellwether Process. Pursuant to CMO 37, the random pool of 65 Actavis

only cases from which the parties will select 6 Bellwether cases will be finalized on March 20,

2017. The Parties are coordinating on the logistics of comparing lists of eligible Actavis only cases

and randomizing the selection process.

2. Custodial File Production. Plaintiffs have requested 26 custodial files in

four tranches. Actavis has produced e-mail and non-email custodial documents from 23 of the 26

custodians requested. Production from those 23 custodians is complete, subject to supplementation


10

with Excel documents requiring redaction and certain custodian-specific additional

supplementation, which the Parties have discussed. As such, plaintiffs have not received any

certificates of completeness.

The parties have met and conferred on the issue of Actavis defendants’ privilege log.

Actavis is in the process of finalizing its privilege log format and conducting supplemental review

of documents previously marked privileged to make sure the designation was proper.

3. AER Data. The Parties have met and conferred several times to work out

the scope and format of AER data production. They have agreed on a set of terms to use to identify

AER records and Actavis is identifying and reviewing responsive AER data regarding Androderm

and preparing an initial report for production to plaintiffs. Actavis also is working to identify and

produce standard operating procedures and manuals, if any, regarding handling and processing of

AER data.

4. Other Non-Custodial File Production. Actavis transmitted the first batch

of non-custodial files and is continuing to identify, collect, and review non-custodial documents

for production.

5. Defense Fact Sheets. The Parties have met and conferred —and are

continuing to discuss—the format for an abbreviated DFS that will apply to the random pool of 65

Actavis only cases, per CMO 37. Actavis has proposed a format for the abbreviated DFS, which

is identical to the abbreviated DFS approved by the Court in CMO Nos. 32 and 33. That proposal

is under consideration by the PSC.

G. Update on Pfizer/Pharmacia: On February 17, the parties submitted joint proposed

dismissal orders and proposed final judgments (or, for cases involving defendants in addition to

Pfizer and Pharmacia, partial final judgments) for all cases pending against Pfizer and Pharmacia


11

as of December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs’ time to file a notice of appeal the Court’s preemption ruling

will begin to run once the Court enters those orders and judgments or partial judgments. In

addition, for cases filed after December 21 where plaintiffs did not provide the discovery required

by amended CMO 19B, the parties have included such cases on the CMO 9 / 26 dismissal lists and

have provided proposed orders and judgments for those cases as well. The parties will continue

to provide those proposed orders and judgments for newly-filed cases on a monthly basis as

needed.

H. Dismissal Lists

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the parties have attached CMO 26 and 9 Dismissal Lists

as Exhibits A and B respectively and will also provide the lists to the Court in Excel format by

email. The parties are informed that there are no outstanding objections from the previous or

current lists that would warrant counsel presenting their disputes to the Court.

The parties wish to inform the Court that there are 23 entries on the CMO 9 list involving

the Meyers & Flowers law firm (having replaced the Branch Law Firm). The parties agree that

disposition of these cases would be premature at this time. Plaintiffs’ counsel is still endeavoring

to complete and/or supplement these Plaintiff Fact Sheets and file stipulations of dismissal where

necessary. The status of these cases will be readdressed in the status report and dismissal lists for

the April 13th, 2017 CMC.

II. Update on Medical Mutual of Ohio:

Actavis Motion to Compel

After coming to an impasse during the meet and confer process, MMO filed a Motion to

Compel against Actavis regarding documents pertaining to the sales and marketing of Androderm.

The Motion has been fully briefed. (D.E. 198, 206, 207).


12

Class Certification Dates and Scheduling Order

The Parties have been conferring on a proposed amendment to the current briefing schedule

(CMO No. 1 at D.E. 174) in order to take into account the current status of discovery. MMO’s

Motion for Class Certification is now set for March 24, 2017. The Parties have discussed this

issue at length but have been unable to agree to a schedule.

MMO’s Position

In an attempt to maintain the current November 2018 trial date while also taking into

account the pace at which discovery has moved since the Court’s order on the 12(b)(6) Motions,

MMO proposed a set of dates to the Defendants reflected in Exhibit C, and a chart comparing the

parties’ respective dates can be found at Exhibit D. MMO believes the parties should enter into a

realistic schedule that would allow adequate time to complete both class, fact and expert discovery,

while not moving the trial date (which we believe the Court would oppose). MMO’s proposed

schedule delayed class certification briefing to December 4, 2017 since the Defendants’ document

production has been significantly delayed well beyond the Parties’ expectation when agreeing to

the original schedule.2 Moreover, a December date to initiate class certification briefing would

2 Defendants’ attempt to shift blame for delayed production to MMO is unwarranted. Defendants’ answers

to MMO’s October 18, 2016 discovery requests served in late November 2016 were replete with objections,

requiring meet and confers which Defendants made no attempt schedule or seek to resolve, thereby shifting

the burden to MMO’s counsel to do so and then requiring weeks to schedule. Indeed, it was in the collective

November 23, 2016, Responses and Objections that the issue of search terms was firs raised by the

Defendants when Defendants objected to producing custodial files prior to a resolution on search terms.

On December 8, 2016, MMO was told by Defendants that they were preparing their own list of general

search terms, and that it would be helpful to see terms proposed by MMO. While no search terms were

ever proposed by Defendants, MMO proposed general search terms on January 3, and defendant specific

search terms on January 10. Additionally, by the time the Defendants agreed to have the first meet and

confer regarding discovery on January 9, 2017, MMO had already provided proposed general search terms,

had produced approximately 3300 pages of documents in response to the Defendants’ Joint RFPDs, and

had negotiated a subpoena duces tecum with a third-party. By comparison, as of March 16, 2017, out of

all the Defendants, only AbbVie has produced any documents responsive to MMO’s document requests

(now over five months old), despite the fact that many of the requests seek non-search term dependent


13

allow adequate time to complete what MMO expects to be in the neighborhood of 30-60

depositions of Defendants’ witnesses,3 who Defendants have told us cannot be deposed second

time during merits discovery. As such, these depositions will of necessity encompass both class

certification and merits issues. Finally, MMO’s schedule does not move the trial date, which we

understand the Court will require.

Defendants’ proposed schedule has an unrealistic briefing schedule for class certification

briefing starting in August 2017. Given the current pace of rolling document production (which

we do not expect the parties to have completed until at the earliest July or August, likely later)

Defendants’ schedule would require class certification briefing shortly after document production

is complete and before any number of meaningful depositions could occur. That is, Defendants’

schedule does not realistically allow for completion of some 30-60 depositions necessary for class

certification briefing, nor for the completion of class certification expert reports and depositions

(as necessary). In addition, Defendants’ proposal would inexplicably push the trial date until mid-

2019 while curtailing time for appropriate discovery.

To address Defendants’ concerns that the schedule we propose could unfairly compress

their merits discovery, we have pointed out that most (if not all) of the depositions in the MMO

case would be completed during the class certification discovery phase, and that we could complete

documents. MMO has scheduled meet and confers on these issues, and made written requests for

explanation and has at no time received reasonable answers as to the cause of this delay. While Defendants

complain as to the timing of search term proposals from MMO, MMO provided its search term proposal

for searching the Defendants’ databases prior to the time Defendants provided proposals to MMO for

searching in MMO’s databases. 3 Defendants’ argument that 30-60 depositions is unreasonable, relying on a 10 deposition “per side” rule

ignores the fact that there are five (5) defendants in the case and throughout case management of this action,

adjustments have been made to accommodate the number of defendants. Moreover, this suggested number

of depositions is in no way a surprise to Defendants as is suggested below. Quite the opposite. MMO’s

counsel has attempted repeatedly to meet and confer with Defendants regarding depositions, number of

deponents, custodians and timing of discovery production in large part without success. Instead, Defendants

have repeatedly pushed off these discussions until after the forthcoming production of custodial files.


14

any clean up discovery needed in the run up to dispositive motions which would not be due until

June 8, 2018.

Defendants have asked MMO to join in a request to move the trial date back from the

current November 4, 2018 date, but MMO has not agreed to this proposal. MMO has offered to

work with Defendants further to meet Defendants’ timing concerns within the current trial date

framework, but it became clear that Defendants had no proposal to address their concerns other

than to push the trial date back to mid-2019. It was thus agreed by the Parties that further

discussions in this regard would be futile.

Defendants’ Position

MMO proposes to push back the current deadline for service of its class-certification

motion and expert disclosures by 8 ½ months. At the same time, instead of extending all scheduled

dates thereafter by an identical 8 ½ months, MMO proposes to significantly shorten the intervals

between subsequent steps in the litigation in order to maintain the November 2018 trial date.

Defendants believe that the time intervals in the existing order are ones that both the Court

and the parties have recognized are reasonable, and that shortening these intervals while affording

MMO an additional 8 ½ months to prepare its class-certification proffer would cause undue

prejudice to Defendants. By way of example, MMO’s proposed schedule allows Defendants just

15 days to prepare their class-certification opposition brief and rebuttal expert reports from the

time MMO is required to make their own experts available for deposition, while Plaintiffs have

the ability to fine-tune their class-certification proffer for many months. Similarly, MMO’s

proposed schedule allows Defendants just 7 days to prepare their rebuttal expert reports on the

merits from the time MMO is required to disclose their own merits expert reports. And MMO’s

proposed schedule eliminates the entirety of the merits-discovery period to which the parties


15

agreed, placing the completion of all fact discovery before the Court’s hearing on class-

certification (and a fortiori before its decision). This is not reasonable, and it is not what the parties

and the Court previously agreed to.

As the Court is aware, CMO 1 was entered on August 22, 2016, at which point the scope

of discovery necessary in this case was yet to be determined. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of CMO 1,

discovery was allowed to commence immediately and, at least at that time, MMO contemplated

that it would need about 7 months to complete class discovery in time to file its opening class brief

on March 24, 2017.

The expected pace of discovery has been slowed to date in large part by MMO’s failure to

engage Defendants with respect to search terms. On October 18, 2016, MMO served its first set

of document requests on Defendants, which included a request for production of numerous

custodial documents. MMO’s requests were not accompanied by any proposals with regard to

search terms. On or about November 23, 2016, Defendants timely served their objections and

responses to MMO’s first set of document requests. In their responses, Defendants advised that

they would produce responsive documents from certain agreed-upon custodial files after the

parties agreed upon search terms. However, MMO waited until January 10, 2017—4 ½ months

after the discovery period commenced—to provide its complete list of proposed search terms to

Defendants. Negotiations commenced at that point, culminating on February 17, 2017 in an

agreement on search terms. Defendants obviously could not have begun reviewing custodial files

prior to that date. With agreed search terms now in place, Defendants are diligently working to

make their productions to MMO and expect to begin producing documents on a rolling basis within

45 days of the search-terms agreement, i.e., by early April.


16

In light of what has transpired to date, Defendants recognize that the parties need additional

time to conduct class discovery before MMO moves for class certification. But Defendants do not

believe that MMO requires 8 ½ additional months. Nor do Defendants believe that MMO should

be permitted to take 30-60 depositions4 – a discovery plan which MMO disclosed to Defendants

for the very first time while this JSR insert was being prepared. Notably, the extension that MMO

now seeks for itself is longer than the 7 months MMO gave itself in the first place to complete

class discovery and serve its opening brief. And whatever extension MMO is granted in preparing

its class-certification proffer, Defendants believe that all subsequent deadlines in this case should

be pushed back by the same amount in order to maintain the same time intervals between

successive deadlines. This case is unique and on a separate track from the rest of the cases in this

MDL, and alteration of the trial date in this case would not affect the bellwether process for the

product liability cases or otherwise impact those cases.

Defendants’ proposed Amended CMO 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit E. Defendants

propose extending all scheduled deadlines (including the trial date) by 4 ½ months. Again,

Defendants’ proposal maintains the existing time intervals, to which the parties and the Court have

agreed, for all steps that follow MMO’s class brief. Now that search terms have been agreed to,

Defendants are diligently working to make their productions to MMO and believe they will

4 FRCP Rule 30 limits parties to 10 depositions per side without consent or a court order. Defendants had

been operating under the assumption that MMO would be taking only a handful of depositions prior to class

certification. MMO has not approached Defendants for their consent or moved the Court to take more than

10 depositions in this case. If it is truly MMO’s intent to try and depose 60 witnesses prior to class

certification, then MMO needs to meet and confer with Defendants to negotiate a cap on the number of

depositions that can be taken. Once that issue is resolved, then the parties can meet and confer on a

reasonable schedule. MMO’s statement that it has “attempted repeatedly to meet and confer with

Defendants regarding … [the] number of deponents” is incorrect. AbbVie raised the possibility of

custodian caps during a meet-and-confer with MMO, but MMO has not yet actually made a proposal for a

specific custodian cap—let alone raised the subject of a deposition cap of 30-60 or any other figure.


17

complete them in sufficient time that an August 7, 2018 deadline for MMO’s class brief and expert

disclosures—which gives MMO an additional 4 ½ months—is both fair and consistent with the

existing Scheduling Order.

The bottom line here is that MMO has offered no valid justification for extending the class

certification schedule by 8 ½ months, let alone altering the time intervals between subsequent

deadlines in a dramatically unequal manner or eliminating the merits discovery period. Again,

much (if not most) of the delay in discovery can be attributed to MMO’s own choice not to

approach Defendants about search terms for 4 ½ months after the discovery period commenced.

And MMO’s newly announced position that it needs sufficient time to take up to 60 class-

certification depositions is both unreasonable and inconsistent with the 7-month class discovery

period to which it initially agreed. Defendants should not be prejudiced in their ability to respond

to MMO’s class-certification and merits-stage proffers because of MMO’s desire for more time to

make its class motion.

Dated: March 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Trent B. Miracle

Trent B. Miracle

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY

One Court Street

Alton, IL 62002

Telephone: (618) 259-2222

Facsimile: (618) 259-2251

[email protected]

Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel

Ronald Johnson, Jr.

SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON PSC

909 Wrights Summit Parkway, Suite 210

Ft. Wright, KY 41011

Phone: (859) 578-4444


18

Fax: (859) 578-4440

[email protected]


Christopher A. Seeger

SEEGER WEISS LLP

77 Water Street

New York, NY 10005

Phone: (212) 584-0700

Fax: (212) 584-0799

[email protected]


David M. Bernick

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019-6064

Phone: (212) 373-3405

Fax: (212) 492-0405

[email protected]

Attorney for AbbVie, Inc.

Hope S. Freiwald

DECHERT LLP Cira Center

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Tel: (215) 994-2514

Fax: (215) 994-2222

[email protected]

Attorney for AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories

David E. Stanley

Janet H. Kwuon

REED SMITH LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2900

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Tel: (213) 457-8000

[email protected]

[email protected]


19

Attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly USA

LLC

Andrew K. Solow

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

250 West 55th Street

New York, NY 10019

Tel: (212) 836-7740

Fax: (212) 836-6776

[email protected]

Pamela J. Yates

ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel: (310) 788-1278

Fax: (310) 788-1200

[email protected]

Attorneys for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and

Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Loren H. Brown

Cara D. Edwards

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

1251 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Phone: (212) 335-4500

Fax: (212) 335-4501

[email protected]

[email protected]

Matthew A. Holian

Jessica C. Wilson

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

Phone: (617) 406-6000

Fax: (617) 406-6001

Email: [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn

Company LLC

Joseph P. Thomas


20

Jeffrey F. Peck

K.C. Green

Jeffrey D. Geoppinger

ULMER & BERNE LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2800

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Phone: (513) 698-5000

Fax: (513) 698-5001

E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Actavis, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc.,

Anda, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada

corporation, and Watson Laboratories, Inc., a

Delaware corporation

James W. Matthews (pro hac vice)

Robert W. Sparkes, III (pro hac vice)

K&L GATES LLP

State Street Financial Center

One Lincoln Street

Boston, MA 02111

Tel: (617) 261-3100

Fax: (617) 261-3175




21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 14, 2017, the foregoing document was filed via the Court’s

CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve and send email notification of such filing to all

registered attorneys of record.

/s/ Brendan A. Smith

Brendan A. Smith

SIMMONS HANLY CONROY

One Court Street

Alton, IL 62002

Telephone: (618) 259-2222

Facsimile: (618) 259-2251

[email protected]


Exhibit A

Case: 1:14-cv-01748 Document #: 1786-1 Filed: 03/14/17 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:27432

In Re TRT Products Liab. Litig., MDL 2545, Agreed Dismissal List Per CMO 26 ‐ 3/14/2017

Case Name Case Number Plaintiff Counsel Basis for Dismissal Dismissed Parties/Clains/ Entire

Action

Type Dismissal

Defendants' Consent/ Dispute

Plaintiff's Consent/ Dispute

Kenneth & Lisa Deemer v AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐06921 ALYSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZStephen N. Echsner17 East Main St., Suite 200Pensacola, FL 32502Phone: (850) 202‐1010Email: [email protected]

Joint Motion to Drop Party Defendants Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 21

Actavis, Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; and Anda, Inc.

Without Prejudice

No objection No objection

Don Piggins v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1:16‐cv‐03276 Baird A. Brown Law Offices Baird A. Brown 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213‐487‐8880

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed 10/28/2016

Entire Action With Prejudice


Pete S. Campbell v. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly USA, LLC, Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd, Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv3288 Baird A. Brown Law Offices Baird A. Brown 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213‐487‐8880

Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice on 10/25/16

Entire Action Without Prejudice


Arrendondo v. AbbVie Inc. et al

1:16‐cv‐03144 Baird A. Brown Law Offices Baird A. Brown 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213‐487‐8880

Stipulation of Dismissal Filed on 1/30/17



Bynum, Waddell Jr. obo Waddell Bynum, deceased v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐03105 Baird A. Brown Law Offices Baird A. Brown 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: 213‐487‐8880

Voluntary/Stipulated Dismissal filed 11/1/2016



Cannon, Jason v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Page 1 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Ferry, Bruce v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Partington, Kenneth v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Porter, Albert v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Ray, Franklin v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Richards, Edward v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Silfee, Wesley v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Page 2 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Soles, Freddie obo Terry L. Soles deceased v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Strickland, Adam W. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Thompson, Willis v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Zygmund, Francis A. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Christopher McMullen v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐03297 Baird Brown Law FirmBaird A. Brown3055 Wilsire Blvd., Suite 1200Los Angeles, CA [email protected]

Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice filed 11/1/2016



Joseph Jencyowski v. AbbVie Inc., et al.


Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice filed 11/1/2017



Page 3 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Daudt, Gary v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Entire Action With prejudice


James, Kenneth v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Robert Pitts v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

1:16‐cv‐6080 BARON & BUDD P.C.Matthew Haynie.3102 Oak Lawn AvenueSuite 1100Dallas, TX 75219


Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly USA, Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd,

Without Prejudice


Siano, John A. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐09721 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. Matthew Patrick Teague P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103‐4160(334) 269‐2343 [email protected]


Entire action Without Prejudice


Christopher Morley v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv1155 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. Matthew Patrick Teague P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103‐4160(334) 269‐2343 matt teague@beasleyallen com

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice on 10/25/16



James Criswell and Sandra Criswell v. Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn, LLC, et al.

1:15‐cv‐00958 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.Matthew P. TeagueP O Box 4160Montgomery, AL 36103‐4160Tel: 334‐269‐2343Fax: 334‐954‐7555

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed 11/30/2016



Page 4 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Christopher O'Rourke v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv11085 Bernstein Liebhard LLP Daniel Christopher Burke 10 East 40th Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10016 212‐779‐1414 Fax: 212‐779‐3218 Email: [email protected]




Harvey Eubanks v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:15‐cv‐11130 Brett A. EmisonLangdon & Emison911 Main StreetP.O. Box 220Lexington MO 64067Telephone: 660‐259‐6175brett@lelaw com

Stipulation of Dismissal filed 1/18/2017



Mark Odom v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐11475 Brett A. EmisonLangdon & Emison911 Main StreetP.O. Box 220Lexington MO 64067Telephone: 660‐259‐6175brett@lelaw com


Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC

With Prejudice


Roger Brooks v. Pfizer, Inc., et al

1:16‐cv‐11636 Brian J. PerkinsMeyers & Flowers, LLC3 North Second St. Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174(630) 232‐6333bjp@meyers‐flowers.com

Amended CMO 19B: Failure to serve response to Pfizer's interrogatory and RFA within 30 days of filing Short‐Form Complaint


With Prejudice


Victor Jakobsons v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐00699 Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine Meghan C. Quinlivan40 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112 303‐792‐[email protected]




Page 5 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



D. Keith Sauls v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

16‐cv‐03932 Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine Meghan C. Quinlivan40 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112 303‐792‐[email protected]


Entire Action ‐ DUPLICATE

Without Prejudice


Kim L. Steen v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐01488 Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine Meghan C. Quinlivan40 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112 303‐792‐[email protected]




Anita S. Rickard, Individually and on behalf of Bonny L. Chapa, deceased v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al

1:16‐cv‐01047 Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine Meghan C. Quinlivan40 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112 303‐792‐5595mquinlivan@burgsimpson com




Richard Marinos v. Endo International, plc Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐09107 Burke Harvey, LLCAmanda H. SchafnerWilliam T. Harvey3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100Birmingham, AL 35243Phone: (205) 930‐9091Fax: (205) 930‐9054Email: [email protected]@burkeharvey,com

Notice of Voluntary dismissal filed 10/4/2016

Endo International, plc, and DPT Laboratories, Ltd.

Without Prejudice


George A. Denton v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐03663 COHEN & MALAD, LLP Edward B. Mulligan, VOne Indiana Square, Suite 1400Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 636‐6481nmulligan@cohenandmalad com



With Prejudice


Page 6 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Alanis, et al. v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐07844 COHEN & MALAD, LLP Edward B. Mulligan, VOne Indiana Square, Suite 1400Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 636‐6481nmulligan@cohenandmalad com



With Prejudice


Augustin Del Hoyo, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐02768 COHEN & MALAD, LLPEdward B. Mulligan VOne Indiana SquareSuite 1400Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: (850)435‐7000Email: [email protected]

Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal filed on 9/29/16

Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; and Anda, Inc.

Without Prejudice


Cameron North, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐08212 COHEN & MALAD, LLPEdward B. Mulligan VOne Indiana SquareSuite 1400Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: (850)435‐7000Email: [email protected]



Without prejudice


George Cooksey, et al. 1:15‐cv‐06953 COHEN & MALAD, LLPEdward B. Mulligan VOne Indiana SquareSuite 1400Indianapolis, IN 46204Phone: (850)435‐7000Email: [email protected]



Without Prejudice


Page 7 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Ralph Prizlen v. Pfizer, Inc.; and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00120 David Conrad DegreeffWagstaff & Cartmell, LLP4740 Grand AvenueSuite 300Kansas City, MO 64112(816) 701‐1100Email: [email protected]




Ralph Schirmer v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:15‐cv‐08428 DAVID P. MATTHEWSSTEVE FARIESLIZY SANTIAGORACHAL G. ROJASMatthews & Associates2905 Sackett St




Joe W. Shuler v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:15‐cv‐07322 DAVID P. MATTHEWSSTEVE FARIESLIZY SANTIAGORACHAL G. ROJASMatthews & Associates2905 Sackett St.Houston TX 77098




William D. Hampton v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:15‐cv‐08238 Discepolo LLP A. Donald C. Discepolo8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310Columbia, MD 21044Telephone: 410‐296‐0780don@discepolollp com




Patrick Haynie v. AbbVie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; AbbVie Products LLC,; Pfizer, Inc.; Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:16‐cv‐06217 Discepolo LLP A. Donald C. Discepolo8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310Columbia, MD 21044Telephone: 410‐296‐0780don@discepolollp com

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed 1/26/2017



Page 8 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Johnny Bonds v. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly USA, LLC and Pfizer, Inc.

1:16‐cv‐00119 Discepolo LLPA. Donald C. Discepolo8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310Columbia, MD 21044Telephone: 410‐296‐0780don@discepolollp com

Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal filed 11/4/2016



Adams, Robert R. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐09962 Discepolo LLPA. Donald C. Discepolo8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310Columbia, MD 21044Telephone: 410‐296‐0780


AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories

Without Prejudice


Tidwell v. Pfizer Inc., et al. 1:15‐cv‐08250 DISCEPOLO, LLP A Donald C. DiscepoloBrandon T. Wolven8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310




Horswill, David William v. AbbVie inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐08239 DISCEPOLO, LLP A. Donald C. Discepolo8850 Columbia 100 ParkwaysSuite 310Columbia, MD 21044

Stipulation of voluntary dismissal filed 11/4/2016



Norton, Billy v. AbbVie inc. et al.





Burrell, Steven v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Page 9 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Richard McCallum v. Actavis, Inc., et al.





Timothy W. Peters v. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐04761 DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY EDWARDSElwood C. Stevens, Jr.556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500Lafayette, LA 70502Phone: (337) 593‐4179Email: [email protected]

Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal filed 10/6/16

Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Anda, Inc.

Without Prejudice


Curt Schroder; Deanna Schroder v. Lilly USA LLC; Eli Lilly and Company

1:15cv8202 Douglas & London Michael A London 59 Maiden Lane 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 212‐931‐9979

Stipulation of Dismissal of entire action filed 1/27/17



Page 10 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Jerry Bowling v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐11575 Douglas & London Michael A. London59 Maiden Lane 6th FloorNew York, NY 10038212‐931‐[email protected]



With Prejudice


Anthony Marchetti and Lizette Marchetti v. AbbVie Inc., et al.




With Prejudice


Karen Logan, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals




With Prejudice


Gerald Joslin v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00110 Drew R. FerrandiniKABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP644 S. Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017Tel: (213) 217‐5000Email: [email protected]




Page 11 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Manear, James v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐01781 EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, PC Kenneth M. RothweilerRita Assetto‐Sherry1634 Spruce StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 546‐6636ken@erlegal com


AbbVie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; AbbVie Products, LLC; Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Besins Healthcare Inc.; Besins Healthcare S A ; Endo

Without Prejudice

No Objection No objection

Rodgers v. AbbVie Inc., et al. 1:16‐cv‐01786 EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, PC Kenneth M. RothweilerRita Assetto‐Sherry1634 Spruce StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 546‐6636ken@erlegal com



With Prejudice


Pollock v. AbbVie Inc., et al. 1:16‐cv‐01760 EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, PC Kenneth M. RothweilerRita Assetto‐Sherry1634 Spruce StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 546‐6636ken@erlegal com



With Prejudice


Shoff v. AbbVie Inc., et al. 1:16‐cv‐01790 EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, PC Kenneth M. RothweilerRita Assetto‐Sherry1634 Spruce StreetPhiladelphia PA 19103

2 stipulations:

Without Prejudice Voluntary/Stipulated Dismissal filed 9/19/2016 With

Entire Action (Some With and Some Without Prejudice) Without Prejudice AbbVie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; AbbVie

Without Prejudice With Prejudice


Page 12 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Rutledge v. AbbVie Inc., et al. 1:16‐cv‐01789 EISENBERG, ROTHWEILER, WINKLER, EISENBERG & JECK, PC Kenneth M. RothweilerRita Assetto‐Sherry1634 Spruce StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19103(215) 546‐[email protected]@erlegal com

2 stipulations:

Without Prejudice Voluntary/Stipulated Dismissal filed 9/19/2016 With Prejudice Stipulation of Dismissal filed

Entire Action (Some With and Some Without Prejudice) Without Prejudice AbbVie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; AbbVie Products, LLC; Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC;

Without Prejudice With Prejudice


Barry Boles v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia and Upjohn, LLC

1:14‐cv‐09659 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Gary A. Anderson2160 Highland Ave. South, Suite 200Birmingham, AL 35205(205) 328‐9200




Kenneth Clark v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐07813 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Gary A. Anderson2160 Highland Ave. South, Suite 200Birmingham, AL 35205(205) 328‐9200



With Prejudice


Gary Young v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐07830 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Gary A. Anderson2160 Highland Ave. South, Suite 200Birmingham, AL 35205(205) 328‐9200gary@elglaw com



With Prejudice


Baggaley, Charles v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:14‐cv‐08729 FODERA & LONG, P.C.Leonard V. Fodera, EsquireAllison Long, Esquire1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900Philadelphia, PA 19102215‐569‐1212

Praecipe to Dismiss without Prejudice filed 2/14/2017


Without Prejudice


Page 13 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Smith, Betty J. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1: 16‐cv‐10365 Goldberg & OsborneDavid J. DiamondDaniel Gregory Sakall698 E. Wetmore Road,Suite 200Tucson, AZ 85705Phone (520) 620‐3975

Voluntary/Stipulated Dismissal 1/7/2017



Campbell, Anton v. Actavis, Inc.

1:15‐cv‐09352 Goldberg & OsborneDavid J. DiamondDaniel Gregory Sakall698 E. Wetmore Road,Suite 200Tucson, AZ 85705Phone (520) 620‐[email protected]@goldbergandosborne.com

Amended Complaint filed 1/5/16

Actavis plc Without Prejudice


Love, Charlie v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐10363 Goldberg & OsborneDavid J. DiamondGreg Sakall698 E. Westmore Road, Suite 200Tucson, AZ 85705Tel: (520) 620‐3975




Williams, Linda v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Patricia Johnson o/b/o the Estate of Andrew Johnson





Page 14 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Bubba Joe Gray v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC

1:17‐cv‐00605 Goldenberglaw, PLLC Stuart Goldenberg800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2150Minneapolis, MN 55402(612) 333‐4662Email: [email protected]




Francis Sibetya and Phiona Hall‐Nangendo v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company





Ronald McCord and Tonya McCord v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company





Dymen Ancrum as Heir and Next of Kin of Decedent Keith Ancrum v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC

1:17‐cv‐00608 Goldenberglaw, PLLC Stuart Goldenberg800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2150Minneapolis, MN 55402(612) 333‐4662Email: csand@goldenberglaw com




Richard Bateman v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA LLC; Acrux Limited; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd.

1:15cv4247 Golomb & Honik, P.C.Richard Golomb; Steven D. Resnick 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19102(215) 985‐9177rgolomb@golombhonik com;




Page 15 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Bettyjane Flores, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐04018 HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP Stephen G. LowryJed D. MantonMadeline E. McNeeleyKristy S. Davies1201 Peachtree Street NE Suite 900



With Prejudice


Stanley B. Latty and Donna B. Latty v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐11875 HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP Stephen G. LowryJed D. MantonMadeline E. McNeeleyKristy S. Davies1201 Peachtree Street NE Suite 900



With Prejudice


Herman Latta v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv1350 Heard Robins Cloud LLP Bill Robins III 808 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929‐4200 robins@heardrobins com




Troy Cunningham v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐00817 Heard Robins Cloud LLP Bill Robins III 808 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929‐4200 robins@heardrobins com


Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; and Anda Inc

Without Prejudice


Richardson, John v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐05018 Heard Robins Cloud LLP Bill Robins III 808 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 929‐4200 robins@heardrobins com


AbbVie Inc., Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Products LLC, Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Besins Healthcare Inc. and Besins

Without Prejudice


Wayne E. Haywood v. Actavis, Inc.

1:16‐cv‐07096 Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC Matthew Blair Clinton 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 205‐327‐9116

Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal ‐ filed in main and individual cases 10/17/16



Page 16 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Frank F. Hitz v. Pfizer, Inc.; and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00685 Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC Maury A. Herman820 O'Keefe AvenueNew Orleans, LA 70113(504) 581‐4892Email: [email protected]




Andrew D. Kennedy, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐08176 HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLCRobert T. Dassow201 W. 103rd Street, Suite 500Indianapolis, IN 46290Phone: (317) 818‐3100Email: [email protected]


Actavis plc; Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc., a Nevada corporation

Without Prejudice


Fulbright v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

1:16‐cv‐06756 Jackson Allen & Williams, LLP Jennifer Williams3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 1100Dallas, TX 75219 [email protected]

Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal 9/28/16

Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly, USA, LLC, Acrix Commercial Pty Ltd and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

With Prejudice


Lawrence R. Smith v. AbbVie, Inc.; AbbVie Products, LLC Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Besins Healthcare, Inc.; Besins Heathcare, SA; Solvay, SA; and Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC

1:14‐cv‐01748 1:16‐cv‐04659

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLCTimothy J. Becker33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530Minneapolis, MN 55402Phone: (612) 436‐1804Email: [email protected]

Stipulation of Dismissal 9/20/16 ‐ Filed in lead case and individual case



Page 17 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Pavlekovich, John R. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐06230 JOHNSON BECKER, PLLCTimothy J. Becker33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530Minneapolis, MN 55402Phone: (612) 436‐1804Email: [email protected]

Stipulation of dismissal filed 11/17/2016



Joseph A Polkus V. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC

1:16cv2694 JOHNSON BECKER, PLLCTimothy J. Becker33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530Minneapolis, MN 55402Phone: (612) 436‐1804Email: [email protected]




Muchoki, Charles v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐10276 Kabateck Brown KellnerLina B. Melidonian644 S. Figueroa St.Los Angeles, CA 90017213‐217‐5000lm@kbklawyers com


Solvay, S.A. Without Prejudice


Martinez, Edwardo v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐10290 Kabateck Brown KellnerLina B. Melidonian644 S. Figueroa St.Los Angeles, CA 90017213‐217‐[email protected]


Solvay, S.A. Without Prejudice


Jose A. Fernandez, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐05773 Kaiser Gornick LLPDavid Markevitch950 Tower Lane, Suite 925Foster City, CA 94404(415) 857‐[email protected]

Amended complaint filed 9/2/16

Watson Laboratories, Inc., a Nevada corporation

Without Prejudice


Page 18 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



William E. Scott v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐01033 Kaiser Gornick LLPDavid Markevitch950 Tower Lane, Suite 925Foster City, CA 94404(415) 857‐7400dmarkevitch@kaisergornick com



Without Prejudice


Daniel Tambourine v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐05838 Kaiser Gornick LLPDavid Markevitch950 Tower Lane, Suite 925Foster City, CA 94404(415) 857‐[email protected]



Without Prejudice


Patten v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. 1:16‐cv‐01180 LEVIN SIMES LLP Rachel Abrams44 Montgomery Street, 32nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104(415) 426‐[email protected]



With Prejudice


Clyde & Rachel Holloway v. Actavis, Inc.

1:15‐cv‐03266 LEVIN SIMES LLP Rachel Beth Abrams 44 Montgomery Street 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415‐426‐3001 [email protected]




Smith et al v. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1:15‐cv‐08599 LEVIN SIMES LLP Rachel Beth Abrams 44 Montgomery Street 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415‐426‐3001 [email protected]


Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

With Prejudice


Jackie Towne, Individually & as Administrator of the Estate of Bruce A. Towne, deceased

1:15‐cv‐01542 LEVIN SIMES LLP Rachel Beth Abrams 44 Montgomery Street 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415‐426‐


Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC);

Without Prejudice


Page 19 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Greeno, Aubrey S v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐09856 Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, PABrandon L. Bogle316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600Pensacola, FL 32502(850) 435‐7000bbogle@levinlaw com


AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. ‐ DUPLICATE ACTION

Without Prejudice


Ringstaff v. AbbVie Inc., et al. 1:15‐cv‐05390 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Yvonne M. Flaherty100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200Minneapolis, MN 55401(612) 339‐[email protected]

Jacob A. FlintFLINT LAW FIRM112 Magnolia Dr.P.O. Box 930Glen Carbon, IL 62034(618) 205‐2017



With Prejudice


Gary Griffith v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00558 Lopez McHugh LLP Andrew W. Knox214 Flynn AveMoorestown, NJ 08057856‐273‐8500Email: [email protected]




McGill v. Pfizer, Inc., et al. 1:14‐cv‐09406 LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP James J. McHughCarrie R. CapouellezAndrew W. Knox214 Flynn Ave.Moorestown NJ 08057




Page 20 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



William Henry Armstrong v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Auxilium Pharmaceutical, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc

1:17‐cv‐00624 Matthews & Associates David Paul MatthewsWendy C. Elsey2905 Sacket StreetHouston, TX 77098888‐520‐5202


Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

With Prejudice


Randal Ray Brown v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00625 Matthews & Associates David Paul MatthewsWendy C. Elsey2905 Sacket StreetHouston, TX 77098

Amended CMO 19B: Failure to serve response to Pfizer's interrogatory and RFA within 30 days of filing



Robert J. Coffey v. Actavis, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Anda, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc

1:17‐cv‐00626 Matthews & Associates David Paul MatthewsWendy C. Elsey2905 Sacket StreetHouston, TX 77098888‐520‐5202


Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

With Prejudice


William Darious Bowman v. Pfizer Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐01347 MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATESDavid P. MatthewsWendy Elsey2905 Sackett StreetHouston, TX 77098Phone: (713) 222‐8080



Without Prejudice


Eddie Johnese v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:14‐cv‐08660 MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATESDavid P. MatthewsWendy Elsey2905 Sackett StreetHouston, TX 77098Phone: (713) 222‐8080


Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Without Prejudice


Gonzalez, Mr. Abel 16‐cv‐637 MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC (replacing Branch Law Firm)Brian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174Phone: (630) 232‐6333Email: bjp@meyers‐flowers.com




Page 21 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Ross, Richard 16‐cv‐1003 MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC (replacing Branch Law Firm)Brian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174




Gatlin v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1:16‐cv‐07589 MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC (replacing Branch Law Firm)Brian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174

Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Filed on 1/24/17



Thomas v. AbbVie, Inc. et al 1:16‐cv‐00128 MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC (replacing Branch Law Firm)Brian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174Phone: (630) 232‐6333


Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly, USA, LLC, Acrix Commercial Pty Ltd and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

With Prejudice


Liberty et al v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1:15‐cv‐04646 Morgan & Morgan, PA Frank M. Petosa 600 N. Pine Island Road Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324


Pfizer, Inc. Without Prejudice


James D. Warren, Jr. and Rebecca Warren v. AbbVie, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc.

1:17‐cv‐00641 Morgan & Morgan, PA Frank M Petosa600 N Pine Island RdSuite 400Plantation, FL 33324954/318‐0268Email: [email protected]


Pfizer, Inc. With Prejudice


Darrell McNeil et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.,

1:16‐cv‐01460 MORRIS LAW FIRMJames A. Morris, Jr.6310 San Vincente Blvd., Suite 360Los Angeles, CA 90048Phone: (323) 455‐4444Email: jmorris@jamlawyers com


Watson Laboratories, a Nevada Corporation

Without Prejudice


Page 22 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



William E. Kelly, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐05937 ONDER, SHELTON, O’LEARY & PETERSON, LLC Michael J. Quillin110 East LockwoodSt. Louis, MO 63119(314) 963‐[email protected]

Stipulation of Dismissal filed 12/22/2016 Stipulation of Dismissal filed 02/23/2017

Two Dismissals, One With and One Without Prejudice ‐ Total ENTIRE ACTION Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC Actavis Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc.; and Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; and Anda Inc.

With Prejudice Without Prejudice


Richard F. Schulte, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:14‐cv‐08962 ONDER, SHELTON, O’LEARY & PETERSON, LLC Michael J. Quillin110 East LockwoodSt. Louis, MO 63119(314) 963‐[email protected]


Pfizer Inc. With Prejudice


Louis J. Thomas v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐00950 Onder, Shelton, O'leary & Peterson LLC Gerard L. Guerra 110 E. Lockwood Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119 (314) 963‐[email protected]


Actavis, Inc. Without Prejudice


Newby, William v. AbbVie Inc.

1:16‐cv‐06227 Onder, Shelton, O'leary & Peterson LLC Gerardo L. Guerra 110 E. Lockwood Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119 (314) 963‐9000

Stipulation of Vountary Stipulated Dismissal filed 10/13/2016



Page 23 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Hall, Terry v. AbbVie Inc. 1:16‐cv‐06321 Onder, Shelton, O'leary & Peterson LLC Gerardo L. Guerra 110 E. Lockwood Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119 (314) 963‐9000



Without Prejudice


Sampson v. Pfizer, Inc. et al 1:15‐cv‐03879 Onder, Shelton, O'leary & Peterson LLC Michael Joseph Quillin 110 E. Lockwood Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119


Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

With Prejudice


Sparkman, Larry v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

16‐cv‐11650 Padberg Corrigan & Appelbaum David W. Bauman1926 Chouteau AvenueSt. Louis MO 63103Telephone: 855‐857‐[email protected]




Stanley, William v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

16‐cv‐11677 Padberg Corrigan & Appelbaum David W. Bauman1926 Chouteau AvenueSt. Louis MO 63103Telephone: 855‐857‐[email protected]




Waldron, Charles v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

16‐cv‐11689 Padberg Corrigan & Appelbaum David W. Bauman1926 Chouteau AvenueSt. Louis MO 63103Telephone: 855‐857‐4400dave@padberglaw com




Harrison Eschenbaum v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:16‐cv‐11561 Padberg Corrigan & Appelbaum David W. Bauman1926 Chouteau AvenueSt. Louis MO 63103Telephone: 855‐857‐[email protected]




Page 24 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Christopher Polselli v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐11612 Padberg Corrigan & Appelbaum David W. Bauman1926 Chouteau AvenueSt. Louis MO 63103Telephone: 855‐857‐[email protected]



With Prejudice


Burkhart v. AbbVie Inc. et al 1:15‐cv‐07374 Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Daniel Christopher Burke 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 516‐723‐5631 dburke@bernlieb com



With Prejudice


Mary Jane Coulliette, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐10473 PARKER WAICHMAN LLP Michael S. Werner6 Harbor Park DrivePort Washington, NY 11050(516) 466‐6500MWerner@yourlawyer com



With Prejudice


Clayton Darr and Margaret Darr v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐10946 PARKER WAICHMAN LLP Michael S. Werner6 Harbor Park DrivePort Washington, NY 11050(516) 466‐6500MWerner@yourlawyer com



With Prejudice


Linda Alwardt, et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.

1:16‐cv‐00564 PARKER WAICHMAN LLP Michael S. Werner6 Harbor Park DrivePort Washington, NY 11050Phone: (516) 466‐6500Fax: (516) 466‐6665mwerner@yourlawyer com




Page 25 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Delbert Cuevas v. Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.





Arturo Hernandez v. Pfizer, Inc.; and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, Inc.





Mark Irvin and Frances Irvin v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.





Cynthia Grugen, et al. v. Pfizer Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, LLC

1:15‐cv‐01996 Peiffer Rosca Wolf Daniel J. Carr 201 St. Charles. Ave., Suite 4610 New Orleans, LA 70170(504) 523‐2434dcarr@prwlegal com




Charles & Clare Banzhof v Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and Pharmacia & Upjohn Company

1:14‐cv‐08908 Provost Umphrey Law Firm Christopher Thomas Kirchmer 490 Park Street P.O. Box 4905 Beaumont, TX 77701

Daniel J. CarrPeiffer Rosca Wolf 201 St. Charles. Ave., Suite 4610 New Orleans, LA 70170d @ l l



With Prejudice


Page 26 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



George Knaepple v. AbbVie Inc., Abbott Laboratories, et al.

1:16‐cv‐8487 Reyes Browne Reilley Spencer P. Browne 5950 Berkshire Lane, Ste 410, Dallas, TX 75225 (214) 526‐7900 spencer@reyeslaw com

Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice on 10/5/16


With Prejudice


Peter Kosiorowski v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16‐cv‐8543 Reyes Browne Reilley Spencer P. Browne 5950 Berkshire Lane, Ste 410, Dallas, TX 75225; (214) 526‐7900 [email protected]




Joey Styles v. Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16‐cv‐8540 Reyes Browne Reilley Spencer P. Browne 5950 Berkshire Lane, Ste 410, Dallas, TX 75225; (214) 526‐7900 [email protected]




Britton, Dennis Sr. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐08517 Reyes Browne Reilley Spencer P. Browne5950 Berkshire Lane, Ste 410Dallas, TX 75225(214) 526‐7900spencer@reyeslaw com




Joseph, Robert v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐11453 ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.Daniel S. Robinson19 Corporate Plaza DriveNewport Beach, CA [email protected]



Without Prejudice


Kenneth Mark Henderson v. AbbVie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories Inc.; Eli Lilly & Co.; Lily USA, LLC

1:15cv1565 Samuel M. Wendt Wendt Law Firm, P.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2610 Kansas City, MO 64105 816‐531‐4415 Fax: 816‐531‐2507 Email: [email protected] Wendt Goss


Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly USA, Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

Without Prejudice


Page 27 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Jerry Palmer v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐04613 Sanders Viener Grossman LLP Randi A. Kassan100 Herricks RoadMineola, NY 11501(516) 741‐5600rkassan@thesandersfirm com




Bowell, Sr., et al. v. AbbVie, Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐01863 Schachter, Hendy & Johnson, PSC Ronald E. Johnson, Jr.Sarah N. Emery909 Wright’s Summit Parkway, Suite 210Ft. Wright, KY 41011(859) 578‐[email protected]@pschachter.com



Without Prejudice


Robin Overby, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐09850 Scott D. LevenstenMichael W. JohnstonTHE LEVENSTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1500Philadelphia, PA 19102(215) 545‐[email protected]@levenstenlawfirm com



With Prejudice


John Howse and Glenda Howse v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐08969 SEEGER WEISS LLP Christopher A. Seeger550 Broad Street, Suite 920Newark, NJ 07102Phone: (973) 639‐9100Email: cseeger@seegerweiss com




Claude Aldridge, Jr. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐03035 Simmons Hanly ConroyTrent MiracleBrendan SmithOne Court StreetAlton, IL 62002Phone: (618) 259‐2222Email: tmiracle@simmonslawfirm com


Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC), Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance

Without Prejudice


Page 28 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Burton et al v. Eli Lilly and Company et al

1:14‐cv‐08739 Simmons Hanly ConroyTrent MiracleBrendan SmithOne Court StreetAlton, IL 62002Phone: (618) 259‐2222Email: tmiracle@simmonslawfirm com


Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, Inc.

With Prejudice


Campbell, Luther v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐03054 Simmons Hanly ConroyTrent MiracleBrendan SmithOne Court StreetAlton, IL 62002


Abbvie, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Products, LLC, Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC,

Without Prejudice


Gonalez, Eddie v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐01403 Simmons Hanly ConroyTrent MiracleBrendan SmithOne Court StreetAlton, IL 62002Phone: (618) 259‐2222Email: [email protected]




Alice Smith, Individually & as surviving spouse obo Fred Smith, deceased

1:14‐cv‐07340 Stueve Siegel Hanson LLPTodd E. Hilton460 Nichols Road, Suite 200Kansas City, MO 64112(816) 714‐7100hilton@stuevesiegel com


Actavis plc Without Prejudice


Bentley, Roger Sr. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐01579 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimile




Page 29 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Schulze, Tim v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐00527 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimile




Wysocki, Ronald v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐00130 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimilembranch@branchlawfirm com




Wood, Robin 16‐cv‐280

THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimilembranch@branchlawfirm com




Wemyss, Christian 16‐cv‐370





Dunlap, Mark 16‐cv‐518





Page 30 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Barton, Dewey 15‐cv‐1570





Fox, Ronnie (Estate) 16‐cv‐229





Woods, Mr. Gary 16‐cv‐586

THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – [email protected]




Steinbock, Henning R. (Estate)

16‐cv‐864

THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – [email protected]




Smith, Charles (Estate) 16‐cv‐779





Page 31 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Smith, Jonathan (Estate) 16‐cv‐865

THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimile




Moix, Mr. Peter 16‐cv‐782





Lujan, Donovan (Estate) 16‐cv‐948





Hammock, Ricky (Estate) 15‐cv‐5346





Flores, Mr. Raul 16‐cv‐705





Page 32 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Broome, Mr. Oran 16‐cv‐727





Brown, Mr. Jeff 16‐cv‐787





Bergmayr, Mr. Timothy 16‐cv‐810

THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104




Richard Neal v. Abbvie Inc.; Abbott Laboratories; Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Llc.; Solvay, S.A.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv812 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimilembranch@branchlawfirm com



With Prejudice


Kem Curtis o/b/o Richard Curtis

1:15‐cv‐05481 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimilembranch@branchlawfirm com




Page 33 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Jeisan Timblin v. Actavis, Inc. 1:16‐cv‐00423 THE BRANCH LAW FIRM Margaret M. Branch, Esq.2025 Rio Grande Blvd. NWAlbuquerque, NM 87104505‐243‐3500 – Telephone505‐243‐3534 – Facsimilembranch@branchlawfirm com




Brinson v. Pfizer, Inc., et al. 1:15‐cv‐01871 The Lanier Law Firm Catherine HeacoxW. Mark Lanier 126 E. 56th Street, 6th floorNew York, NY 10022(212) 421‐2800



With Prejudice


George Robert Oxsheer Jr.; Virginia Lee Oxsheer v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.; AbbVie Inc.; Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Lilly USA LLC

1:14cv04556 The Lanier Law Firm Catherine HeacoxW. Mark Lanier 126 E. 56th Street, 6th floorNew York, NY 10022(212) 421‐[email protected]



With Prejudice


Amerson et al v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al

1:14‐cv‐04554 The Lanier Law Firm Lee Adam Cirsch 2049 Century Park East Suite 1940 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310‐277‐5100


Pfizer Inc. With Prejudice


Ronald Couwenhoven v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.

1:14‐cv‐04525 The Lanier Law FirmCahterine Heacox126 East 56th Street, 6th floorNew York, NY 10022Phone: (212) 421‐2800Email: [email protected]

Stipulation of Dismissal filed on 1/23/17

Actavis, Inc. Without Prejudice


Page 34 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Jackson‐Swinton, Jeannette v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:15‐cv‐07889 THE LEVENSTEN LAW FIRM, P.C. Scott D. Levensten1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1500Philadelphia, PA 19102(215) 545‐5600sdl@levenstenlawfirm com


Entire Action Without prejudice


Rachel Moore, individually and as administrator of the estate of Dirk Harper v. AbbVie Inc., et al.




With Prejudice


Parker, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.




With Prejudice


Jeff Berry, et al. v. Eli Liily & Company, et al.

1:15‐cv‐09902 THE LEVENSTEN LAW FIRM, P.C.Scott Levensten1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1500Philadelphia, PA 19102Phone: (215) 545‐5600 [email protected]



Without Prejudice


Spencer Edwards, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.




Without Prejudice


Page 35 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Kenneth Farquhar v. AbbVie Inc., et al.




Without Prejudice


Julio Martinez v. AbbVie Inc., et al




Without Prejudice


Martin Parker, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.



Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc.; and Anda, Inc.

Without Prejudice


John Sparacino, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.




Without Prejudice


Steele et al v. Eli Lilly and Company et al

1:16‐cv‐05793 The Levensten Law Firm, PC Scott D. Levensten 1420 Walnut Street Suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19102




Page 36 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Larry Calhoun, Jr. v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐05331 THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.Roger W. Orlando315 West Ponce de Leon Ave, Suite 400Decatur, GAPhone: (404) 373‐1800Email: [email protected]



Without Prejudice


Liangos v. AbbVie, Inc., et al. 1:14‐cv‐03106 TORHOERMAN LAW LLC Tor A. HoermanChad A. Finley101 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 350Edwardsville, IL 62025(618) 656‐[email protected]@thlawyer com



With Prejudice


Kevin W. King v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐02426 TORHOERMAN LAW LLC Tor A. HoermanChad A. Finley101 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 350Edwardsville, IL 62025(618) 656‐[email protected]@thlawyer com


Actavis, Inc. (n/k/a Allergan Finance, LLC); Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc.; Anda, Inc.

Without Prejudice


William Woodhouse v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐09982 WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP David Conrad Degreeff 4740 Grand Ave, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112(816)701‐[email protected]



Without Prejudice


Whitehead et al v. AbbVie Inc et al

1:15‐cv‐06549 WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP David Conrad Degreeff 4740 Grand Ave, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112(816)701‐1100ddegreeff@wcllp com



Without Prejudice


Page 37 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Rigney v. AbbVie Inc. et al 1:15‐cv‐10742 WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP David Conrad Degreeff 4740 Grand Ave, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112(816)701‐1100ddegreeff@wcllp com



Without Prejudice


Sohail Siddiqui v. Eli Lily and Company; Lilly USA, LLC; Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd; Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16cv2926 WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLPDavid Conrad Degreeff4740 Grand Ave, Suite 300, Kansas City, MO 64112(816)701‐1100ddegreeff@wcllp com




Henry Leech, et al. v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐04649 WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.David Rosenband700 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003Phone: (212) 440‐1338Email: [email protected]




Marshall Lemaster v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐01342 WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.David Rosenband700 BroadwayNew York, NY 10003Phone: (212) 440‐1338Email: [email protected]




Sweers, Keith v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐09163 ZOLL & KRANZ, LLC James G. O'Brien6620 W. Central Ave., Suite 100Toledo, OH 43617Tel. (419) 841‐9623Fax (419) 841‐9719Email jim@toledolaw com

Voluntary/Stipulated Dismissal 12/16/2016



Page 38 of 39




Action

Type Dismissal



Valdez, Benedict v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Juliana A. Bunting as Personal Representative of the Estate of Kenneth F. Bunting, et al.




Without Prejudice


Baker, Donnie v. AbbVie Inc. et al.





Page 39 of 39


Exhibit B


In Re TRT Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2545‐Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice Pursuant to Second Amended CMO 9 ‐ 3/14/2017

CASE NAME CASE NUMBER MTD FILE DATE

PLAINTIFF COUNSEL DISMISSED PARTIES/CLAIMS

TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Steeley, Fred v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐05381 1/26/2017 Anapol Weiss Gregory S. Spizer 130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600Philadelphia, PA [email protected]

Entire Action With Prejudice No response

Davis, Antony v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐07006 2/7/2017 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.Matthew P. TeagueP O Box 4160Montgomery, AL 36103‐4160Tel: 334‐269‐2343


Brown, Lowell v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐01494 7/28/2016 Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine Meghan C. Quinlivan40 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112 303‐792‐[email protected]

Entire Action With Prejudice Opposition filed 8/17/2016 seeking additional time to respond and serve

Wraggs, Leslie V. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐07193 2/7/2017 Matthews & Associates DAVID P. MATTHEWSWENDY C. ELSEY2905 Sackett St.Houston, TX 77098713.222.8080713.535.7184 – facsimile

Entire Action With Prejudice Opposition filed 2/27/2017

Page 1 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Andrades, Fred v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐07417 3/1/2017 MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC (replacing Branch Law Firm)Brian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174Phone: (630) 232‐6333Email: bjp@meyers‐flowers.com

Entire Action With Prejudice Response due 3/22. The parties agree that disposition would be premature. Plaintiffs’ counsel will endeavor to complete and/or supplement these PFS until the 4/13/17 CMC.

Farrar, Herbert v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 2 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Fitzpatrick, Donald v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Flemming, Brian v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 3 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Huston, John v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Loero, German v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 4 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Manuel, Albert v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



McCullough, Cedric v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 5 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

McDermott, Bernard v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Owens, Jessie v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 6 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Ramsey, Daniel v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Ray, Sr., Johnie v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 7 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Redding, Larry v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Reyes, George R. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 8 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Schultheis, Mark v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Smith, Jim D. v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 9 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Stills, Jake v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Strempek, Douglas v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 10 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Tracy, Timothy v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Woodward, Richard v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 11 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

York, Michael v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Cruz, Alfredo v. AbbVie Inc. et al.



Page 12 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Dennie Baggett v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

1:16‐cv‐07404 3/2/2017 Meyers & Flowers, LLCBrian J. Perkins3 North Second Street, Suite 300St. Charles, IL 60174(630) 232‐6333bjp@meyers‐flowers.com


Taneja, Vikash v. AbbVie Inc. et al.

1:16‐cv‐08189 2/7/2017 Morgan & Morgan, PA Frank M. Petosa 600 N. Pine Island Road Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324


Harris et al v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1:16‐cv‐08725 1/27/2017 Onder, Shelton, O'leary & Peterson LLC Gerardo L Guerra 110 E. Lockwood Ave. St. Louis, MO 63119 314‐963‐9000


Paul Sarkozy v. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly USA, LLC, Acrux Commercial Pty Ltd, Acrux DDS Pty Ltd

1:16‐cv‐8373 1/3/2017 Ronald E. Johnson, Jr. Schachter, Hendy & Johnson, PSC 909 Wright's Summit Pkwy, #210, Ft. Wright, KY 41011 859/578‐4444 [email protected]

Entire Action With Prejudice Response filed 1/4/17

Page 13 of 14





TYPE DISMISSAL

STATUS

Robert Pound v. Actavis, Inc., et al.

1:15‐cv‐09744 2/24/2017 Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLPDavid C. Degreeff4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300Kansas City, MO 64112(816) 701‐[email protected]

Entire Action With Prejudice Response due 3/17

Page 14 of 14


Exhibit C


PLAINTIFF MMO’S PROPOSED AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2545

Master Docket Case No. 1:14cv1748


MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABBVIE INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-8857

[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1

The Court hereby issues the following First Amended Case Management Order 1. This

CMO replaces and supersedes CMO 1.

1. Though class discovery and merits discovery will proceed concurrently, the

Parties will endeavor to prioritize class discovery in order to allow the Parties to brief the issue

of class certification before the end of merits discovery.

2. The Parties will take steps to minimize duplicative discovery but recognize there

are issues raised by the operative complaint in this action which have not been the subject of

discovery in the personal injury cases coordinated in this MDL.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification shall be filed by December 4, 2017. The

motion shall set forth all Plaintiff’s theories and arguments in support of class certification.

Concurrently with the filing of the motion, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants any expert



declarations or reports on which its motion relies. Such reports shall conform with Rule

26(b)(2). Within a reasonable time but no later than January 15, 2018, Plaintiff shall produce

such experts for deposition upon request.

4. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification shall be filed

by January 30, 2018. Concurrently with the filing of their opposition, Defendants shall serve on

Plaintiff any expert declarations or reports on which their opposition relies. Such reports shall

conform with Rule 26(b)(2). Within a reasonable time but no later than February 23, 2018,

Defendants shall produce such experts for deposition upon request.

5. Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of its motion for class certification shall be filed

by March 9, 2018. Concurrently with the filing of the reply brief, Plaintiff shall serve on

Defendants any rebuttal expert declarations or reports on which the reply brief relies. Such

reports shall conform with Rule 26(b)(2).

6. If the Court requires argument or some other form of hearing on the motion for

class certification it will be held on March 15, 2018 or on another date set by the Court

following completion of briefing as set forth above.

POST-CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING SCHEDULE

7. The deadline for amending the pleadings and adding parties is [ ].

8. Merits discovery will conclude by March 9, 2018.

9. Plaintiff’s’ merits-stage expert reports will be served by March 23, 2018. Within

a reasonable time but no later than April 20, 2018, Plaintiff shall produce such experts for

deposition upon request.



10. Defendants’ merits-stage expert reports will be served by April 27, 2018. Within

a reasonable time but no later than May 25, 2018, Defendants shall produce such experts for


11. Rebuttal merits-stage expert reports may only be served with leave of Court.

12. The deadline for filing dispositive and/or Daubert motions is June 8, 2018. When

and if such motions are filed, opposition briefs will be due no later than 28 days following the

filing date (July 9, 2018). Reply briefs will be due no later than 14 days after the opposition is

filed (July 23, 2018).

13. A hearing on any dispositive motions and Daubert motions, if deemed necessary

by the Court, will be set by the Court following the completion of briefing as set forth above.

14. Witness lists, deposition designations, and exhibit lists shall be served by

September 24, 2018.

15. Motions in limine shall be filed by October 5, 2018. Responses to motions in

limine will be due on October 19, 2018. Motions and responses are limited to a total of thirty

(30) pages per side absent prior approval by the Court for a greater page limit.

16. The date for filing the proposed final pretrial order, as well as the dates for the

final pretrial conference and hearing on all trial-related motions, will be set at a later time.

17. The case is set for trial on November 4, 2018 at 9:45 a.m.

DATED:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Matthew F. Kennelly



United States District Judge


Exhibit D


Plaintiff MMO’s Proposed Schedule

Current Dates Event MMO Proposed Date

Defendants’ Date

March 24, 2017 MMO Class Brief +Expert Disclosures

December 4, 2017 August 7, 2017

Depositions of MMO Class Experts

December 14, 2017-January 15, 2018

No later than 45 Days

June 5, 2017 D Opp. To Class Cert +Expert Disclosures

January 30, 2018 October 19, 2017

Depositions of Defendants’ Class experts

February 9-23, 2018 No later than 45 days

July 21, 2017 MMO Reply Brief March 9, 2018 December 4, 2017 September 14, 2017 Class Hearing-if

needed March 15, 2018

November 14, 2017 Fact Discovery Complete—All Parties

March 9, 2018 March 23, 2018

December 12, 2017 MMO Expert Reports

March 23, 2018 April 20, 2018

January 2018 MMO Expert Depos April 1-20, 2018 April 21-June 4, 2018 February 26, 2018 D Expert Reports April 27, 2018 July 3, 2018 April 2018 D Expert Depos May 3-25, 2018 July 4-August 27,

2018 May 12, 2018 Dispositive Motions June 8, 2018 September 26, 2018 June 10, 2018 Opposition to

Dispositive Motions July 9, 2018 October 24, 2018

June 24, 2018 Reply to Dispositive Motions

July 23, 2018 November 7, 2018

TBD 2018 Hearing on Dispositive Motions

August 16, 2018 Set by Court

August 10, 2018 Witness, exhibit lists Deposition Designations

September 14, 2018 December 21, 2018

September 9, 2018 Motions in limine October 5, 2018 January 21, 2019 September 23, 2018 Responses to MIL October 19, 2018 February 4, 2019 Deadline for

exclusions/objections October 31, 2018 February 18, 2019

November 4, 2018

Trial November 4, 2018

March 18, 2019


Exhibit E


DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1

9109620v.1 9627704v.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: TESTOSTERONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2545

Master Docket Case No. 1:14cv1748


MEDICAL MUTUAL OF OHIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABBVIE INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-8857

[PROPOSED] FIRST AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1

The Court hereby issues the following First Amended Case Management Order 1. This

CMO replaces and supersedes CMO 1.

1. Though class discovery and merits discovery will proceed concurrently, the

Parties will endeavor to prioritize class discovery in order to allow the Parties to brief the issue

of class certification before the end of merits discovery.

2. The Parties will take steps to minimize duplicative discovery but recognize there

are issues raised by the operative complaint in this action which have not been the subject of

discovery in the personal injury cases coordinated in this MDL.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification shall be filed by August 7, 2017. The

motion shall set forth all Plaintiff’s theories and arguments in support of class certification.

Concurrently with the filing of the motion, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants any expert



9109620v.1 9627704v.1

declarations or reports on which its motion relies. Such reports shall conform with Rule

26(b)(2). Within a reasonable time but no later than September 18, 2017, Plaintiff shall produce

such experts for deposition upon request.

4. Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification shall be filed

by October 19, 2017. Concurrently with the filing of their opposition, Defendants shall serve on

Plaintiff any expert declarations or reports on which their opposition relies. Such reports shall

conform with Rule 26(b)(2). Within a reasonable time but no later than November 16, 2017,

Defendants shall produce such experts for deposition upon request.

5. Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of its motion for class certification shall be filed

by December 4, 2017. Concurrently with the filing of the reply brief, Plaintiff shall serve on

Defendants any rebuttal expert declarations or reports on which the reply brief relies. Such

reports shall conform with Rule 26(b)(2). Within a reasonable amount of time but no later than

December 22, 2017, Plaintiffs will produce such rebuttal experts for deposition upon request.

6. If the Court requires argument or some other form of hearing on the motion for

class certification it will be held on February 1, 2018 or on another date set by the Court

following completion of briefing as set forth above.

POST-CLASS CERTIFICATION HEARING SCHEDULE

7. The deadline for amending the pleadings and adding parties is February 14,

2018.

8. Merits discovery will conclude by March 23, 2018.

9. Plaintiff’s’ merits-stage expert reports will be served by April 20, 2018. Within a

reasonable time but no later than June 4, 2018, Plaintiff shall produce such experts for




9109620v.1 9627704v.1

10. Defendants’ merits-stage expert reports will be served by July 3, 2018. Within a

reasonable time but no later than August 27, 2018, Defendants shall produce such experts for


11. Rebuttal merits-stage expert reports may only be served with leave of Court.

12. The deadline for filing dispositive and/or Daubert motions is September 26,

2018. When and if such motions are filed, opposition briefs will be due no later than 28 days

following the filing date (October 24, 2018). Reply briefs will be due no later than 14 days after

the opposition is filed (November 7, 2018).

13. A hearing on any dispositive motions and Daubert motions, if deemed necessary

by the Court, will be set by the Court following the completion of briefing as set forth above.

14. Witness lists, deposition designations, and exhibit lists shall be served by

December 21, 2018.

15. Motions in limine shall be filed by January 21, 2019. Responses to motions in

limine will be due on February 4, 2019. Motions and responses are limited to a total of thirty

(30) pages per side absent prior approval by the Court for a greater page limit.

16. The date for filing the proposed final pretrial order, as well as the dates for the

final pretrial conference and hearing on all trial-related motions, will be set at a later time.

17. The case is set for trial on March 18, 2019 at 9:45 a.m.

DATED:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Matthew F. Kennelly



9109620v.1 9627704v.1

United States District Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF … · 3/14/2017 · Master Docket Case No....

Documents

Transcript of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF … · 3/14/2017 · Master Docket Case No....