Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.

United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

October 17, 2019, Decided; October 17, 2019, Filed

MDL No. 13-2472; Master File No. 1:13-md-2472-WES-PAS

Opinion

 [*365]  MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON CLASS CERTIFICATION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN EXPERT OPINIONS AND DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.

In this putative class action, the End-Payor Plaintiffs ("EPPs") allege that Defendants Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Sales (US), LLC, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott plc, and Warner Chilcott Limited (collectively, "Warner Chilcott") and Defendants Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (together, "Watson"1, and collectively, with Warner Chilcott, "Defendants") [**11]  violated state and federal law through a series of actions intended to delay and suppress generic competition for the oral contraceptive Loestrin 24 Fe ("Loestrin 24").2 The EPPs moved for class certification. See generally EPPs' Mot. for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel, ECF No. 526; Mem. of Law in Supp. of EPPs' Mot. for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel ("EPPs' Mot. for Class Certification"), ECF No. 528-1. In order to allow sufficient time for notice to the class prior to trial, which is slated to commence on January 6, 2020, the Court — having found the prerequisites of Rule 23 fully satisfied — issued an Order dated September 17, 2019, granting in part and denying in part the EPPs' Motion for Class Certification, promising an opinion explaining the Order.3 See ECF No. 1226. This Memorandum serves that purpose.

 [*366]  In addition to explaining the reasoning underlying the Order on the EPPs' Motion for Class Certification, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Claims in EPPs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, ECF No. 576, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; [**12]  Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinion and Testimony of EPPs' Expert Gary L. French, Ph.D., ECF No. 575, is DENIED; EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James W. Hughes, Ph.D. ("EPPs' Mot. to Exclude Hughes"), ECF No. 634, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of EPPs' Experts Eric Miller, Laura Craft, and Myron Winkelman, ECF No. 698, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and the EPPs' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Mr. Timothy E. Kosty and Dr. Bruce A. Strombom ("EPPs' Mot. to Exclude Kosty and Strombom"), ECF No. 733, is DENIED.

I. Background

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

410 F. Supp. 3d 352 *; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182299 **; 104 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1460; 2019-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,995

IN RE LOESTRIN 24 FE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL END-PAYOR CLASS ACTIONS

CORE TERMS

generic, Defendants', consumers, unjust enrichment, brand, class certification, purchases, consumer protection, damages, but-for, class member, antitrust, reimbursement, methodology, pharmacy, courts, state law, prices, overcharges, calculate, drugs, uninjured, anticompetitive conduct, motion to exclude, class action, entities, antitrust claim, reliable, pharmaceutical, rebates

Antitrust & Trade Law, Business & Corporate Compliance, Antitrust, Governments, Legislation, Statutory Remedies & Rights, Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability, Standing, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Quasi Contracts, Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause, Federal Preemption, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Remedies, Damages, Types of Evidence, Regulated Practices, Private Actions, Remedies, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, Predominance, Prerequisites for Class Action, Preponderance of Evidence, Numerosity, Commonality, Typicality, Private Actions, Certification of Classes, Statements as Evidence, Hearsay