In re Neurontin Mktg. And Sales Practices Litigationthis Document Relates To:harden Mfg. Corp..

• Decision Date: 10 December 2010
• Docket Number: MDL No. 1629.Civil Action No. 04–cv–10981–PBS.
• Citation: 754 F.Supp.2d 293
• Parties: IN RE NEURONTIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATIONThis Document Relates To:Harden Manufacturing Corporation; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue of Louisiana; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 68 Welfare Fund; ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust; Gerald Smith; and Lorraine Kopa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Pfizer, Inc. and Warner–Lambert Company.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

754 F.Supp.2d 293

IN RE NEURONTIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATIONThis Document Relates To:Harden Manufacturing Corporation; Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue of Louisiana; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 68 Welfare Fund; ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust; Gerald Smith; and Lorraine Kopa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

v. Pfizer, Inc. and Warner–Lambert Company.

MDL No. 1629.Civil Action No. 04–cv–10981–PBS.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Dec. 10, 2010.

Terry P. Abeyta, Abeyta Nelson, Yakima, WA, Keith L. Altman, Steven H. Cohen, Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, Newburgh, NY, Ronald Judah, Aranoff Bernstein, Liebhard LLP, New York, NY, Gustavo W. Alzugaray, Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Gordon Ball Ball & Scott, Knoxville, TN, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Lexington, MS, Thomas F. Basile, W. Stuart Calwell, Charleston, WV, Bradley Douglas Becnel, Law offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, Reserve, LA, Robert M. Becnel, Law Offices of Robert M. Becnel, Laplace, LA, George S. Bellas, Bellas & Wachowski, Ridge, IL, Richard Bemporad, Richard W. Cohen, Jeanne F. D'Esposito, Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., White Plains, NY, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, Pavel Bespalko, Law Office of Joel Eigerman, Daniel D'Angelo, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Boston, MA, Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore & Brewer, Medford, MA, Levi Boone, III, Boone Law Firm PA, Cleveland, MS, Rainey Cawthon Booth, Littlepage & Booth, Pensacola, FL, Robert E. Borrero, Kenneth Cohen, Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, Walter L. Boyaki, Miranda & Boyaki, El Paso, TX, Derek T. Braslow, Pogust & Braslow LLC, Conshohocken, PA, Eugene Brooks, Brooks Law Firm, Savannah, GA, William L. Bross, Timothy C. Davis, Heninger, Garrison & Davis, LLC, Andrew P. Campbell, Campbell Waller & Poer LLC, Birmingham, AL, Joseph M. Bruno, Stephanie M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno LLP, Dane S. Ciolino, Attorney at Law, David L. Browne, James R. Dugan, II, Dugan & Browne, PLC, New Orleans, LA, Donald Angelo Caminiti, Breslin & Breslin, PA, Hackensack, NJ, Kristine M. Cahill, Ronald J. Campione, Budd Larner, PC, Short Hills, NJ, Kathleen C. Chavez, Geneva, IL, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, Chicago, IL, John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli, Cleveland, OH, Daniel M. Cohen, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, Washington, DC, Jonathan S. Coleman, Johnson, Pope, Okor, Ruppel & Burns LLP, Tampa, FL, John A. Commerford, Meyers Taber & Meyers PC, Phoenix, AZ, Charles Horne Cooper, Jr., Cooper & Elliott, Columbus, OH, Susan G. Copeland, Law Office of J. Doyle Fuller, Montgomery, AL, W. Lloyd Copeland, Taylor, Martino & Hedge, P.C., Charles H. Dodson, Jr., Sims, Graddick & Dodson, P.C., Mobile, AL, Silas G. Cross, Jr., Cross, Poole & Smith, LLC, Tuscaloosa, AL, Rebecca Cunard, Cunard Law Firm, Baton Rouge, LA, Samuel J. DeMaio, Girards Law Firm, Dallas, TX, Neil A. Dean, Rice, Dean & Kelsey LLC, Topeka, KS, Christopher Brooks Dellmuth, Harrisburg, PA, James T. Dulin, Dulin & Dulin, Gulfport, MS, J. Blake Dutcher, Jr, Godlove, Joyner, Mayall, Dzialo, Dutcher & Erwin, Lawton, OK, for Plaintiffs.William A. Alford, III, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kansas City, MO, Ray M. Aragon, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, Washington, DC, Katherine Armstrong, Katherine F. Arthur, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Carter H. Burwell, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Mark S. Cheffo, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul F. Corcoran, Davis & Gilbert LLP, Charles E. Dorkey, III, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, New York, NY, Richard M. Barnes, Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann, LLP, Bonnie J. Beaven, Baltimore, MD, Catherine Marie Valerio, Barrad Sidley Austin, LLP, Kimberly H. Clancy, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Charles F. Barrett, Barrett & Associates, Nashville, TN, Leslie Anne Benitez, Susan E. Burnett, Lark A. Campbell, Clark Thomas & Winters, Austin, TX, John A. Boyle, Marino & Associates, Newark, NJ, Philip Henry Butler, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White LLP, Montgomery, AL, Evan W. Davis, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Paul R. Duden, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Portland, OR, for Defendants.Faith Renee Ford, pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SARIS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Harden Manufacturing Corporation (“Harden”), Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana (“BCBSLA”), International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 68 Welfare Fund (“Local No. 68”), ASEA/AFSCME Local 52 Health Benefits Trust (“ASEA”), Gerald Smith and Lorraine Kopa, collectively the Class Plaintiffs, bring this case against Pfizer, Inc. and Warner–Lambert Company on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Claims 1–2); the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8–1 et seq. (Claim 3); and making claims for common law fraud (Claim 4) and unjust enrichment (Claim 5).

Defendants moved for summary judgment [Docket No. 1689] on four grounds: (1) that plaintiffs have failed to create a triable issue of fact as to causation; (2) that plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether or not Neurontin is ineffective for the relevant off-label uses; (3) that plaintiffs have failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants misrepresented Neurontin's effectiveness with scienter; and (4) that plaintiffs lack standing.

In January of this year, the Court issued an opinion with respect to the Coordinated Plaintiffs in this case allowing in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. See In re Neurontin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 677 F.Supp.2d 479 (D.Mass.2010). In the time since defendants' motion for summary judgment was filed, the Court also held a bellwether trial in the case brought by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, one of the Coordinated Plaintiffs. ( See Jury Verdict, Docket No. 2760.) On November 3, 2010 the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in that case. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 748 F.Supp.2d 34, 2010 WL 4325225 (D.Mass. Nov. 3, 2010). The Court made findings regarding Neurontin's efficacy for off-label indications, among other things.¹

After a hearing and review of the extensive record, the Court ALLOWS the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to all Class Plaintiffs except individual consumer plaintiffs Gary Varnam and Jan Frank Wityk.

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

This Court has written extensively about the facts of this case and assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts. See In re Neurontin, 677 F.Supp.2d at 485; Kaiser, 748 F.Supp.2d 34, 2010 WL 4325225. Those facts relevant to causation will be described more fully here.²

A. Individual Consumer Plaintiffs1. Gary Varnam

Gary Varnam suffers from bipolar disorder and received numerous prescriptions for Neurontin over a period of more than three years. ( See Class Pl.'s Statement of Disputed and Undisputed Material Facts in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.'s SOF”) ¶ 193.) Varnam testified that Neurontin was “completely ineffective in treating my bipolar disorder” and “gave me no benefit.” ( Id.)

Varnam was first prescribed Neurontin by Dr. John Arness in February 2001, after asking if there were alternatives to Tegretol, a medication that requires patients to undergo frequent blood and liver function testing. ( Id. ¶¶ 193–94.) Dr. Arness testified that he learned Neurontin could be used to treat bipolar disorder 10 or 15 years ago “[t]hrough readings and association with other doctors.” (James Decl., Ex. 9 at 23.) He also testified that he had prescribed Neurontin to at least 10 to 20 patients with mild bipolar symptoms and that “the anticonvulsants are widely known and widely accepted as a treatment for bipolar disorder, and Neurontin is in that category.” ( Id. at 23–24.) Medical records kept by Dr. Arness indicated that Varnam was “feeling good and wants to continue [Neurontin]” during the time period in question. ( Id. at 39, 42.) In addition, Dr. Arness stated that he could not recall being detailed on Neurontin by a Parke–Davis or Pfizer sales representative between 2000 and 2008. ( Id. at 65.)

Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that Dr. Arness was detailed in September 1999 by a Parke–Davis sales representative, Laurie Winslow, with whom he discussed Neurontin's use for psychiatric disorders. (Pl.'s SOF ¶ 195 (citing Rona Decl., Ex. 376).) Later that month, Dr. Arness received a Medical Information Request or “Dear Doctor” letter from Parke–Davis concerning “treatment of bipolar depression and mood disorder.” (Rona Decl., Ex. 86.) This letter described favorable evidence about Neurontin's use for mood disorder, including an article published in February 1996 in Progress in Neuro–Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry by three members of Parke–Davis's department of Central Nervous System Clinical Research and Development. This article, titled “Effect of Gabapentin (Neurontonin ® [ sic ] ) on Mood and Well–Being in Patients with Epilepsy,” (the “ Dimond article”) claimed that five epilepsy trials studying Neurontin showed that Neurontin had beneficial effects on mood. See Kaiser, 748 F.Supp.2d at 50, 2010 WL 4325225, at *13. However, in 1992 the FDA examined the same five epilepsy trials as part of its medical statistical review of Neurontin, and determined that, for some patients, Neurontin increased the risk of depression, with or without suicidal ideation. See id. at 40–41, at *4.

The Dear Doctor letter also omitted information about the negative results of three double-blind, randomized controlled trials (“DBRCTs”) studying the use of Neurontin to treat bipolar disorder. First, it omitted the negative results of a bipolar trial conducted by Dr. Atul Pande,...