Ellis v. Western National Bank

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that Dr. Parisian is not an expert on bisphosphonate medications and may not offer testimony on that issue
• observing that “the intent, motives, or states of mind of corporations, regulatory agencies and others have no basis in any relevant body of knowledge or expertise”
• concluding plaintiff had failed sufficiently to plead 1 an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against a defendant and therefore he 2 failed to plead a Bane Act claim against the same defendant
• finding that expert testimony on what the FDA and pharmaceutical company “actually did, rather than thought, [is] properly within the scope of admissible testimony,” and allowing expert testimony on the reasonableness of defendant’s interactions with FDA and compliance with FDA regulations
• permitting expert testimony about what reasonable industry participants would do or think about certain actions
• “The interest in protecting a company’s internal information can warrant sealing of records.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).