UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
IN RE: PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE (PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL NO. 1407 ______________________________ ORDER GRANTING WYETH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT This document relates to:
Lydia Dyson v. American Home Products Corp., et al., 2-cv- 893.
Wyeth f/k/a American Home Products Corporation (“Wyeth”) moves this court for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that the evidence in this case demonstrates that plaintiff did not ingest a PPA-containing product manufactured by Wyeth within the seventy-two hours prior to her alleged stroke as required by the Court’s June 18, 2003 Daubert Order. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion. [1] Having reviewed the motion, the court hereby finds and rules as follows:
On July 8, 2003, plaintiff was deposed. During her deposition, plaintiff unequivocally testified that she did not ingest a PPA-containing product manufactured by Wyeth within seventy-two hours of her alleged stroke. Given the court’s June 18, 2003 Daubert Order excluding evidence of product usage outside of the seventy-two hour window, plaintiff cannot make a sufficient showing as to an essential element of her case. Based on her own sworn testimony, plaintiff cannot meet the burden of proof with respect to her claims against Wyeth. Indeed, plaintiff’s deposition testimony clearly demonstrates that she did not ingest any Wyeth product within the seventy-two hours preceding her alleged stroke. There exists no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Accordingly, Wyeth is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Based on the foregoing, the court hereby GRANTS Wyeth’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law and plaintiff’s claims against it are DISMISSED with prejudice.
DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 7th day of December 2005. A BARBARA JACOBS ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
[1] The summary judgment motion was filed on August 9, 2005. Thereafter, on August 29, 2005, the court stayed the case through 25 November 20, 2005. As such, plaintiff’s opposition was due on December 2, 2005. 26