Plaintiffs Lawyers Want Talk of 'Lawsuit Abuse' Out of the 1st Taxotere Trial
Plaintiffs lawyers suing over the breast cancer drug Taxotere filed motions this week to ensure that the first bellwether trial against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is not about them.
July 18, 2019 at 07:16 PM
4 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers suing over the breast cancer drug Taxotere filed motions this week to ensure that the first bellwether trial against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC is not about them.
“Plaintiff anticipates that Sanofi may attempt to alienate the jury by converting the trial into a referendum on lawful practices by plaintiff attorneys,” wrote lead trial counsel Darin Schanker, of Denver's Bachus & Schanker, and Rand Nolen, of Fleming, Nolen & Jez in Houston, in a motion filed ahead of a trial scheduled for Sept. 16.
In a separate motion, they also sought to limit “certain irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial matters” about alleged “lawsuit abuse” or “lawyer-driven science,” among other things.
“Defendant may attempt to present argument or evidence suggesting that this lawsuit or litigation as a whole and the science involved is lawyer-driven, fabricated, or exaggerated by counsel who make money through product liability lawsuits,” they wrote.
The motions are the latest in the Taxotere litigation to address controversial issues flagged by tort reformers, such as the influence of lawyer advertising and outside litigation financing on plaintiffs in mass tort cases. In 2017, plaintiffs attorneys threatened sanctions against Sanofi for filing a motion filled with “unfounded accusations” that are “indecent and vexatious” in an attempt to get information on outside funding in the litigation, which now numbers nearly 12,000 lawsuits in federal court in New Orleans, plus hundreds of cases in New Jersey state courts.
Sanofi-Aventis, in a renewed motion filed months later, raised concerns about fee arrangements with doctors, medical screenings of plaintiffs and outside funders that allowed doctors to charge inflated costs on medical liens. Defendants have made similar requests for outside financing disclosures in cases involving blood thinner Xarelto and Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
The lawsuits claim Taxotere caused women to suffer permanent hair loss, or alopecia areata—a side effect the U.S. Food and Drug Administration acknowledged in a labeling change in 2015.
In one motion filed this week, plaintiffs lawyers asked to prohibit references to lawyer advertising in the upcoming trial. In another, they wanted a bar on statements about the number of attorneys suing over Taxotere and their financial status, as well as their “means of travel.”
“Permitting counsel and witnesses to interject these improper statements or comment on these matters, thus requiring plaintiff's counsel to repeatedly object in the presence of the jury, would only serve to draw attention to them and exacerbate the unfair prejudicial impact on plaintiff,” they wrote. “Further, any such testimony would be highly and unfairly prejudicial, and is calculated to do nothing more than inflame jurors and play on their biases about lawyers or the alleged need for tort reform.”
They also sought to limit discussion about payments to their experts and prohibit mention of settlement discussions and plaintiff's bar training programs, noting, “In today's world, public suspicion and even disapproval of the professional conduct of plaintiffs' attorneys is not uncommon.”
Sanofi brought its own motion to prohibit plaintiffs attorneys from bringing up advocacy groups or individuals referred to as “Taxotears.”
Neither Schanker nor Nolen, nor co-lead counsel Christopher Coffin, a partner at Pendley Baudin & Coffin in New Orleans, and Karen Barth Menzies, a Los Angeles partner at Girard Gibbs, responded to a request for comment.
Sanofi lawyers Jon Strongman, of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, Missouri, and Douglas Moore, of New Orleans-based Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore, also did not respond.
In March, U.S. District Judge Jane Milazzo of the Eastern District of Louisiana pushed back the original May 13 trial date for the first bellwether trial to September. She has set additional trials for 2020.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250