In Re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation
2:14-md-02592
E.D. La.Sep 20, 2017Background
- Multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2592) consolidated ~20,000 Xarelto cases alleging inadequate warnings caused severe bleeding; bellwether trials for Boudreaux and Orr resulted in defense verdicts.
- Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 for new trials, asserting prejudicial evidentiary rulings and improper jury instructions affected their rights.
- Core evidentiary disputes: exclusion of a medical article (the “Lippi Article”) and foreign Xarelto labels/regulatory materials; admissibility of an expert’s testimony about his wife’s Xarelto use; exclusion of an email/attachment as a business record.
- Plaintiffs also challenged the court’s refusal of certain proposed jury instructions and the decision to send demonstrative materials to the jury room.
- The court applied the Rule 59 standard (new trial only for manifest injustice, weight of evidence, unfair trial, or prejudicial error) and concluded any errors were not harmful; motions for new trial were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Lippi article (foreign regulatory content) | Lippi article was relevant to PT testing/labeling and exclusion prejudiced plaintiffs | Foreign-regulation material is irrelevant and confusing under FED. R. EVID. 401/403 | Court excluded as confusing; plaintiffs had other cross-examination opportunities; no prejudicial error |
| Exclusion of foreign Xarelto labels | Foreign labels show warnings/knowledge and should be admissible | Labels reflect foreign regulatory compliance and are irrelevant/confusing | Court held foreign labels inadmissible under Rules 401/403 but allowed statements to foreign authorities; no prejudice |
| Expert testimony about personal use (Dr. Peters’s wife) | Testimony about family use was prejudicial and irrelevant | Testimony was relevant to witness credibility after plaintiffs attacked motives; cross-examination available | Court allowed narrowly for credibility purposes; not prejudicial error |
| Exclusion of email/attachment as business record | Email with attachment qualified under FRE 803(6) and should be admitted | Plaintiffs failed to show the email/attachment was read or acted upon; attachment related to foreign regulation | Court excluded attachment (foreign regulation) and found no foundation for business-record admission; plaintiffs could still question witnesses about content; no error |
| Jury instructions (plaintiffs’ proposed) | Proposed instructions were necessary given complex issues and failure to give them caused confusion | Court’s charge was comprehensive, balanced, and included requested federal regulation references | Court declined proposed instructions; found jury charge adequate and not misleading |
| Demonstrative materials in jury room | Some demonstratives sent were not agreed on and prejudiced plaintiffs | Parties agreed on materials; court also may send demonstratives with cautionary instructions | Materials sent with cautionary instructions; parties had signed off or were cautioned; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985) (grounds for granting a new trial).
- Learmonth v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 631 F.3d 724 (5th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff must show manifest injustice to obtain new trial).
- Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1985) (district court’s new-trial decision reviewed for abuse of discretion).
- Prytania Park Hotel, Ltd. v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 179 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 1999) (discussing limits on relief under Rule 59).
- Sommers Drug Stores Co. Emp. Profit Sharing Tr. v. Corrigan, 883 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1989) (standards for jury instructions: comprehensive, balanced, accurate).
- Big John, B.V. v. Indian Head Grain Co., 718 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983) (court may send demonstratives to jury with cautionary instructions).