ORDER

JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.

I. LAW OF THE CASE

A. Straka's Motions

Straka filed several motions in limine (Docket No. 101)1 that are identical to the motions filed in Schedin v. Johnson & Johnson, 2010 WL 4628566 (D. Minn. Nov. 8. 2010). Finding no newly discovered evidence, changes in the governing law or manifest error in the previous rulings, the Court adheres to the law of the case regarding these rulings.

B. Defendants' Motions

Defendants have also filed several motions in limine2 identical to previously filed motions. Finding no newly discovered evidence, changes in the governing law or manifest error in the previous rulings, the Court adheres to the law of the case regarding these rulings.

II. NEW MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Straka's Motions

1. New Jersey Motions

Straka makes a series of motions presented in Beare et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., No. L-196-10 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. July 20, 2011). (Docket No. 101.) Straka seeks to exclude evidence that a verdict for Straka will adversely impact pharmaceutical companies' incentive or ability to develop new medications; evidence that tends to suggest in any way that an award of damages in this case will adversely affect the public's access to medications; evidence that this or any other case in the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") may have a negative impact on Defendants' stock values; evidence that this or any other case in the MDL may cause an increase in the cost of purchasing or maintaining insurance; evidence that this case or any other case in the MDL may cause an increase in the cost of medications; evidence about former or current ownership of Defendants' stock by Straka, his counsel, witnesses, or their families; evidence of settlement negotiations; evidence of Straka's insurance coverage; evidence regarding Defendants' payment or insurance in the event of a verdict for Straka; evidence of prejudgment interest; evidence regarding recovery enhancement; and evidence that an award of punitive damages might be unconstitutional. The Court will grant each of these motions; however, if at trial a party reasonably believes evidence regarding one of these items has become an appropriate subject, counsel may argue its admission outside the presence of the jury.

Straka also seeks to preclude Defendants from offering any evidence that lawsuits or failure-to-warn laws (1) pressure drug manufacturers to add invalid or unsubstantiated warnings, (2) undercut the FDA's mission to provide valid warnings, or (3) frustrate the FDA's protective regime. This motion will be granted as to any arguments contained in the opening statements; ruling on specific evidence, if any, will be considered during trial.

Finally, Straka moves to preclude Defendants from offering evidence that Defendants should not be exposed to multiple states' separate tort law regimes and evidence related to preemption. This motion will be granted as to any arguments contained in the opening statements; ruling on specific evidence, if any, will be considered during trial.

2. Other Motions

Straka moves to preclude Defendants from arguing that FDA approval of label changes indicates approval of the tendon risk warning conveyed in those labels. (Docket No. 111.) The Court determines that the FDA's approval of label changes is relevant; however, if desired, either party may request an instruction that the FDA's actions are not conclusive or controlling.

Straka moves to exclude expert testimony of Dr. David Feigal. The Court will deny this motion, but notes that Dr. Feigal's testimony regarding Levaquin's regulatory history must be limited to the facts sufficient to provide context for the jury. Moreover, so long as Dr. Feigal's testimony regarding the FDA's intent is limited to instances in which the intent is clearly indicated in public documents, the Court finds the testimony admissible.

B. Defendants' Motions

Defendants seek to preclude Straka from offering Dr. Peter Layde's prior deposition and trial testimony during the current trial. (Docket No. 118.) For the reasons set forth during the hearing with respect to Straka's motion concerning Dr. Layde (Docket No. 106), this motion will be granted.

Defendants seek to exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Cheryl Blume to the extent that it relates to preempted claims. (Docket No. 41.) Because the Court has held that none of Straka's claims are preempted (Order, Docket No. 185), this motion will be denied.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's Omnibus Motions in Limine [Docket No. 101] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

2. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Arguing that the FDA Approval of Label Changes Indicates Approval of Tendon Warning [Docket No. 111] is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Feigal [Docket No. 69] is DENIED.

4. Defendants' Motion in Limine on Evidence of "Ghostwriting" [Docket No. 88] is DENIED.

5. Defendants' Motion in Limine on Various Issues [Docket No. 89] is DENIED.

6. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Concerning Regulatory Actions and Proposed Label Changes in Foreign Countries [Docket No. 98] is DENIED.

7. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence or Reference to Adverse Event Reports [Docket No. 90] is DENIED.

8. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Petitions to FDA from Public Citizen and the Illinois Attorney General [Docket No. 96] is DENIED.

9. Defendants' Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from using at Trial Dr. Peter Layde's Prior Deposition and Trial Testimony [Docket No. 118] is GRANTED.

10. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Cheryl Blume [Docket No. 41] is DENIED.