LEATHA TAYLOR, individually and as administratrix of the estate of David Taylor, et al. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; IPR PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; ASTRAZENECA LP - Articles

All Content

LEATHA TAYLOR, individually and as administratrix of the estate of David Taylor, et al. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP; IPR PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; ASTRAZENECA LP

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Feb 13, 2024

Head Comment: In re: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE (SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - MDL 2809

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Ashton Rose Smith, MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Paul W. Schmidt, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Ashton Rose Smith, Jennifer A. Moore, MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Paul W. Schmidt, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, New York, New York, Carol Dan Browning, STITES & HARBISON PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, Emily S. Ullman, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Judge(s): SILER, NALBANDIAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from Multi-District Litigation 2809

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. In this multi-district litigation, plaintiffs claim that saxagliptin, a diabetes drug, caused their heart failure. During expert discovery, plaintiffs presented a single expert to show the drug can cause heart failure. After a Daubert hearing and expert motions, the district court excluded the expert, finding that methodological flaws rendered his testimony unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court then granted summary judgment for defendants, rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that other evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as well as their request for ninety days to find a replacement expert.

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court’s exclusion of their expert, its grant of summary judgment, and its refusal to give plaintiffs more time to find another expert witness. Because we conclude all three claims lack merit, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: