John Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, 739 F.3d 401

Plaintiff John Schedin obtained a jury verdict awarding $630,000 in compensatory damages against Ortho‑McNeil‑Janssen Pharmaceuticals (OMJP) for Achilles tendon injuries allegedly caused by the antibiotic Levaquin; punitive damages were reversed on appeal in In re Levaquin.
While that appeal was pending, OMJP moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence and alleged misconduct relating to the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Martin T. Wells.
OMJP asserted Dr. Wells had not disclosed certain relative‑risk calculations and supporting data during discovery; OMJP argued those calculations would have undermined Dr. Wells’s credibility and the foundation of Schedin’s claim.
OMJP sought relief under Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence) and Rule 60(b)(3) (fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct); the district court denied the motion.
The district court concluded the withheld calculations were at most cumulative or impeaching and would not probably produce a different result, and that any nondisclosure did not prevent OMJP from fully presenting its defense.
OMJP appealed; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schedin)	Defendant's Argument (OMJP)	Held
Whether withheld expert calculations constitute "newly discovered evidence" warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(2)	N/A (motion brought by OMJP)	The calculations were newly discovered, material, and would have undermined Dr. Wells, thus probably producing a different result	Denied — court held calculations were cumulative/impeaching and unlikely to change the outcome
Whether plaintiff's nondisclosure of expert calculations constituted misconduct justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(3)	N/A	Schedin’s alleged failure to disclose (and instructing expert not to disclose) was misconduct that prevented a fair defense	Denied — court found no clear and convincing evidence that misconduct prevented OMJP from fully presenting its case

In re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 700 F.3d 1161 (8th Cir. 2012) (prior decision upholding compensatory verdict and reversing punitive damages)
U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2003) (Rule 60(b) is extraordinary relief requiring exceptional circumstances)
Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2000) (elements for newly discovered evidence under Rule 60(b)(2))
E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns, 757 F.2d 215 (8th Cir. 1985) (burden to show fraud or misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3))
U.S. ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 728 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2013) (no abuse where moving party fails to show new evidence or misrepresentations would probably produce a different result)
Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court has wide discretion on Rule 60(b) motions)