Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civ. No. 84-2013-G(IEG)

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
Writing for the CourtGeorge Berry, Robert Dickson and Pamela Yates, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendants
Citation727 F. Supp. 570
PartiesWilliam DAUBERT and Joyce Daubert, individually and as Guardians ad Litem for Jason Daubert, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants. Michael SCHULLER, Anita De Young, and Anita De Young as Guardian ad Litem for Eric Schuller, Plaintiffs, v. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 84-2013-G(IEG),84-2929-G(IEG).
Decision Date14 December 1989

727 F. Supp. 570

William DAUBERT and Joyce Daubert, individually and as Guardians ad Litem for Jason Daubert, a minor, Plaintiffs,
v.
MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Michael SCHULLER, Anita De Young, and Anita De Young as Guardian ad Litem for Eric Schuller, Plaintiffs,
v.
MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civ. Nos. 84-2013-G(IEG), 84-2929-G(IEG).

United States District Court, S.D. California.

November 1, 1989.

As Modified December 14, 1989.


727 F. Supp. 571

Mary Gillick, San Diego, Cal., Barry Nace of Paulson, Nace, Norwind & Sellinger, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.

George Berry, Robert Dickson and Pamela Yates, Santa Monica, Cal., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GILLIAM, District Judge.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was scheduled for hearing on October 6, 1989, in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Earl B. Gilliam. Plaintiffs were represented by Mary Gillick and Barry Nace. George Berry, Robert Dickson and Pamela Yates appeared on behalf of defendant. Having considered the points and authorities and oral argument of counsel, the court issues this memorandum decision and order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.

FACTS

This case involves personal injuries sustained by plaintiffs. Infant plaintiffs and their guardians ad litem seek damages from defendant for injuries (limb reduction birth defects) allegedly sustained as a result of the mothers' ingestion of Bendectin during pregnancy. Bendectin is a prescription pharmaceutical product previously manufactured by Merrell Dow, indicated solely for the treatment of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden of establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is proper "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial...." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "The standard for granting summary judgment mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)...." Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

In this case the defendant has moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, who have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, oppose the motion. The court must therefore determine "whether a fairminded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff based on the evidence presented." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 251-252, 106 S.Ct. at 2511-2512.

727 F. Supp. 572
The court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, however, "the evidence is insufficient if the strongest inference to be drawn in the plaintiff's favor is that defendant's negligence could possibly have been the cause of the accident." Bieghler v. Kleppe, 633 F.2d 531, 533 (9th Cir.1980) (emphasis in original) (citing Neely v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 584 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1978)). The plaintiff must show that defendant's negligence "was more probably than not the proximate cause of the accident" to defeat summary judgment and take the issue to a jury. Bieghler at 533. The court should exclude inadmissible evidence objected to by either party prior to ruling upon the motion. See, Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co. v. Turley, 622 F.2d 1324, 1335 (9th Cir.1980)

Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 703, restricts the admissibility of scientific evidence. "A necessary predicate to the admission of scientific evidence is that the principle upon which it is based `must be sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field to which it belongs.'" United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978). Therefore, expert opinion not based on facts or data "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field" is not helpful, but instead is confusing or misleading and should therefore be excluded. See, Fed.R.Evid. 403. See also Barrel of Fun, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 739 F.2d 1028, 1033 (5th Cir.1984) (excluding expert's opinion based on polygraph test). "Whether an expert's opinion has an adequate basis, and whether without it an evidentiary burden has been met, are matters of law for the court to decide." Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, 857 F.2d 823, 829 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 218, 107 L.Ed.2d 171 (1989).

There are two schools of thought governing expert testimony in these Bendectin cases, and one seems to be prevailing in the federal courts. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the prevailing school of thought warrants summary judgment in this case.

The prevailing school is best exemplified by Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.1989), modified, 884 F.2d 166 (5th Cir.1989), rehr'g denied, en banc, 884 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1989) where the court held the following:

We find, in this case, the Brocks' failure to present statistically significant epidemiological proof that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects to be fatal to their case.

Id. at 313. The court also noted:

Hopefully, our decision will have the effect of encouraging district judges faced with medical and epidemiological proof in subsequent toxic tort cases to be especially vigilant in scrutinizing the basis, reasoning, and statistical significance of studies presented by both sides. However, we do not wish this case to stand as a bar to future Bendectin cases in the event that new and statistically significant studies emerge which would give a jury a firmer basis on which to determine the issue of causation.

Id. at 315. Several other cases are in accord with this reasoning. See, Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, supra; Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories, 830 F.2d 1190 (1st Cir.1987); Hull v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 700 F.Supp. 28 (S.D.Fla.1988); In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. "Bendectin" Products Liability Litigation, 624 F.Supp. 1212 (S.D.Ohio 1985), aff'd, 857 F.2d 290 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 788, 102 L.Ed.2d 779 (1989); Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 229 N.J.Super. 230, 551 A.2d 177 (1988).

In medical cases like this one, courts must "critically evaluate the reasoning process by which the experts connect data to their conclusions in order for courts to consistently and rationally resolve the disputes before them." Brock, 874 F.2d at 310. Absent a scientific understanding of the cause of the birth defects at issue in Bendectin cases, causation may be shown only through reliance upon epidemiological evidence. See, Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell; Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories. See also In re Agent Orange

727 F. Supp. 573
Product Liability Lit., 611 F.Supp. 1223 (E.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 818 F.2d 187 (2nd Cir.1987) (stating that epidemiological studies were "the only useful studies having any bearing on causation" in Agent Orange cases)

In Richardson, Dr. Done, the plaintiff's expert, relied upon 1) chemical structure activity analysis, 2) in vitro (test tube) studies, 3) in vivo (animal teratology) studies, and 4)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, No. 94-0843
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 8, 1996
    ...experts based their opinions was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 572 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, citin......
  • Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 3, 1998
    ...experts based their opinions was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 572 (S.D.Cal.1989). On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the criteria is whether the scientific evidence is relevant and relia......
  • People v. Leahy, No. S035250
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 27, 1994
    ...experts failed to meet Frye 's "general acceptance" standard. (See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D.Cal.1989) 727 F.Supp. 570, 572-576.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. (See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (9th Cir.1991) 951 F.2d 1128.) That court ......
  • Fishback v. People, No. 92SC68
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 26, 1993
    ...court utilized the Rules of Evidence in determining that the testimony was not sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence. 727 F.Supp. 570 (S.D.Cal.1989). The trial court ruling was affirmed under the Frye test. 951 F.2d 1128 (9th 3 Because this number is reliable, I do not believe i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson, No. 94-0843
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 8, 1996
    ...experts based their opinions was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 572 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, citin......
  • Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 3, 1998
    ...experts based their opinions was generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 572 (S.D.Cal.1989). On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the criteria is whether the scientific evidence is relevant and relia......
  • People v. Leahy, No. S035250
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 27, 1994
    ...experts failed to meet Frye 's "general acceptance" standard. (See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D.Cal.1989) 727 F.Supp. 570, 572-576.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. (See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (9th Cir.1991) 951 F.2d 1128.) That court ......
  • Fishback v. People, No. 92SC68
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • April 26, 1993
    ...court utilized the Rules of Evidence in determining that the testimony was not sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence. 727 F.Supp. 570 (S.D.Cal.1989). The trial court ruling was affirmed under the Frye test. 951 F.2d 1128 (9th 3 Because this number is reliable, I do not believe i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust Economics as Science after Daubert
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 42-4, December 1997
    • December 1, 1997
    ...theories is beyond the scope of this article. For a summary ofthe "unilateral effects" theories, see IIANTITRUST4, 31 (1997).14 727 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. Cal. 1989).15 951 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1991).I~Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. Daubert875published human statistical stud......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT