IN RE LEVAQUIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 08-1943 (JRT) (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20111230891
Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2011
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. Defendants filed a motion in limine on various issues identical to a motion previously filed in the MDL. 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 this ruling. In order to be more consistent with those Orders, the Court makes the following amendment to its previous Order (Docket No. 188). ORDER Based on the foregoing, and the records,
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. Defendants filed a motion in limine on various issues identical to a motion previously filed in the MDL. 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 this ruling. In order to be more consistent with those Orders, the Court makes the following amendment to its previous Order (Docket No. 188). ORDER Based on the foregoing, and the records, f..
More
ORDER
JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge.
Defendants filed a motion in limine on various issues identical to a motion previously filed in the MDL. 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 this ruling. In order to be more consistent with those Orders, the Court makes the following amendment to its previous Order (Docket No. 188).
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion in Limine on Various Issues [Docket No. 89] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED regarding reference to other products of Defendants that do not meet the "substantial similarity" test for relevance, and granted regarding the exclusion of marketing materials from other drug companies. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
Source: Leagle
