Industry Insider: Merck takes the offensive to lay civility ground rules
Merck sure picked a funny way to ask that its opponents observe rules of civility in an upcoming Vioxx trial in Atlantic City.
In a motion filed earlier this month, the drugmaker slagged Houston attorney Mark Lanier's conduct last summer during the Ernst trial in Texas, the first Vioxx case to go to a jury. Lanier won a $253.4 million judgment against Merck, although that amount is expected to fall to $26 million on appeal.
He will be lead attorney again in a dual trial in New Jersey Superior Court involving plaintiffs Thomas Cona and Robert McDarby, which is scheduled to begin early next month.
In its brief, Merck listed 14 "infractions" by Lanier in the earlier trial. The alleged sins included arguing with witnesses, offering personal views on the truthfulness of certain witnesses and references to Lanier's out-of-court roles as a part-time preacher and family man.
The pharmaceutical company's defense team also cited a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon, who is overseeing federal Vioxx cases, that denied the live playback of a deposition Lanier took. "It's just the tone and the smirking and the laughter that has no place in federal court," the judge said.
Merck attorneys seemed to recognize that pummeling an opponent preemptively was an odd way to promote rules of decorum. In their motion to Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, they offered "apologies for the undesired (but, Merck believes, necessary) itemization of infractions."
For his part, Lanier said he could have filed similar citations on the behavior of Diane Sullivan, one of Merck's co-counsels in a Vioxx case brought by Frederick Humeston, which the drugmaker won in Atlantic City last fall. Sullivan clashed with Higbee several times, and once with a member of her own legal team.
"Merck doesn't need to worry, because I'm going to conduct myself within the rules of the court," Lanier said in a phone interview. "Different judges have different rules."
-- Jeff May
Who let the dogs in? In a victory for animal rights activists, the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled this week that Pfizer must allow a vote on an animal testing resolution at its stockholder meeting this spring.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked Pfizer to adopt resolutions that call for stepped-up protections for animals used in laboratory testing. Pfizer asked the SEC to declare the resolution ineligible for consideration.
"We're thrilled that the SEC agreed that shareholders have a right to vote on this issue," said PETA's director of regulatory testing, Jessica Sandler.
Over the past year, PETA has used shareholder meetings as a protest forum. Its resolutions typically lose by wide margins, but the group is happy just to get its issues before shareholders and the media.
In a letter to the SEC, Pfizer said PETA's request was "vague and indefinite" and that "the animals cannot communicate to Pfizer" that their "psychological, social and behavioral needs be met."
-- George E. Jordan
In a motion filed earlier this month, the drugmaker slagged Houston attorney Mark Lanier's conduct last summer during the Ernst trial in Texas, the first Vioxx case to go to a jury. Lanier won a $253.4 million judgment against Merck, although that amount is expected to fall to $26 million on appeal.
He will be lead attorney again in a dual trial in New Jersey Superior Court involving plaintiffs Thomas Cona and Robert McDarby, which is scheduled to begin early next month.
In its brief, Merck listed 14 "infractions" by Lanier in the earlier trial. The alleged sins included arguing with witnesses, offering personal views on the truthfulness of certain witnesses and references to Lanier's out-of-court roles as a part-time preacher and family man.
The pharmaceutical company's defense team also cited a recent ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon, who is overseeing federal Vioxx cases, that denied the live playback of a deposition Lanier took. "It's just the tone and the smirking and the laughter that has no place in federal court," the judge said.
Merck attorneys seemed to recognize that pummeling an opponent preemptively was an odd way to promote rules of decorum. In their motion to Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee, they offered "apologies for the undesired (but, Merck believes, necessary) itemization of infractions."
For his part, Lanier said he could have filed similar citations on the behavior of Diane Sullivan, one of Merck's co-counsels in a Vioxx case brought by Frederick Humeston, which the drugmaker won in Atlantic City last fall. Sullivan clashed with Higbee several times, and once with a member of her own legal team.
"Merck doesn't need to worry, because I'm going to conduct myself within the rules of the court," Lanier said in a phone interview. "Different judges have different rules."
-- Jeff May
Who let the dogs in? In a victory for animal rights activists, the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled this week that Pfizer must allow a vote on an animal testing resolution at its stockholder meeting this spring.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked Pfizer to adopt resolutions that call for stepped-up protections for animals used in laboratory testing. Pfizer asked the SEC to declare the resolution ineligible for consideration.
"We're thrilled that the SEC agreed that shareholders have a right to vote on this issue," said PETA's director of regulatory testing, Jessica Sandler.
Over the past year, PETA has used shareholder meetings as a protest forum. Its resolutions typically lose by wide margins, but the group is happy just to get its issues before shareholders and the media.
In a letter to the SEC, Pfizer said PETA's request was "vague and indefinite" and that "the animals cannot communicate to Pfizer" that their "psychological, social and behavioral needs be met."
-- George E. Jordan
posted by Chris Placitella at 6:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home