Filed: Apr. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ERIC N. VITALIANO, District Judge. In 2010, Stephanie Mazzei and Dorothea Woods-Gaston (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed suit against various drug companies including Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), (Compl., No. 10-CV-2233 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1; Compl., No. 10-CV-1011 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1.), asserting that the defendant drug companies are liable for injuries plaintiffs sustained as the result of in utero exposure to the prescription medication diethylstilbestrol ("DE
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ERIC N. VITALIANO, District Judge. In 2010, Stephanie Mazzei and Dorothea Woods-Gaston (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed suit against various drug companies including Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), (Compl., No. 10-CV-2233 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1; Compl., No. 10-CV-1011 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1.), asserting that the defendant drug companies are liable for injuries plaintiffs sustained as the result of in utero exposure to the prescription medication diethylstilbestrol ("DES..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ERIC N. VITALIANO, District Judge.
In 2010, Stephanie Mazzei and Dorothea Woods-Gaston (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed suit against various drug companies including Eli Lilly and Company ("Lilly"), (Compl., No. 10-CV-2233 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1; Compl., No. 10-CV-1011 (E.D.N.Y.), ECF No. 1.), asserting that the defendant drug companies are liable for injuries plaintiffs sustained as the result of in utero exposure to the prescription medication diethylstilbestrol ("DES"), which each of the defendants formerly manufactured and marketed. (See generally Compl., No. 10-CV-2233; Compl., No. 10-CV-1011.) A trial between plaintiffs and Lilly, the only remaining defendant,1 is scheduled to begin on April 23, 2012. Pending now before the Court is plaintiffs' opposed motion for partial summary judgment in which plaintiffs argue that Lilly should be estopped from contesting jury findings (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) from Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 55 N.Y.2d 571, 450 N.Y.S.2d 776, 436 N.E.2d 182 (1982).2 The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azrack for a Report and Recommendation. Judge Azrack's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") issued on March 13, 2012, and recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part such that Lilly would be estopped from contesting Bichler jury findings (1), (3), (4), and (5).
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation of a magistrate judge, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). And, a district judge is required to "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Arista Records. LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010). But, where no timely objection has been made, the district "court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" to accept a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
No party has objected. And, after careful review of the record, the Court finds the R&R to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is granted in part and denied in part such that Lilly is estopped from contesting Bichler jury findings (1), (3), (4), and (5).
The Joint Pretrial Order remains due by April 13, 2012 and trial remains scheduled to begin on April 23, 2012.
SO ORDERED.