In Re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs’ experts are not “appropriate vehicles” for introduction of evidence related to foreign regulatory actions because subject of that testimony is a lay matter
• excluding expert testimony on historical and regulatory background of drug that is just as easily understood by jury if submitted through percipient witness
• excluding proposed expert testimony regarding the intent, motives, or states of mind of corporations or regulatory agencies
• rejecting portions of plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony that was “a narrative reciting selected regulatory events” because “[sjuch material, to the extent it is admissible, is properly presented through percipient witnesses and documentary evidence”
• excluding 25 expert testimony as to corporate motivation and intent as not based on any relevant body 26 of knowledge or expertise and as assuming the role of advocate
• precluding expert testimony that consisted of a “narrative of the case which a juror is equally capable of constructing” (quoting Taylor v. Evans, No. 94-CV-8425, 1997 WL 154010, at (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1997))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).