The Ghosts of Litigation Holds Past

Earlier this year, in the widely followed In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability Litigation matter, a Louisiana federal jury ordered a drug manufacturer to pay $6 billion in punitive damages and $1.5 million in actual damages. An adverse ruling and instruction from the judge regarding spoliation of evidence likely played an important role in the verdict. The spoliation ruling stemmed from a litigation hold imposed in a separate lawsuit almost ten years earlier. Below we suggest a number of steps that can help prevent a similar outcome for manufacturers in future cases.

THE SPOLIATION RULING -

Even though the Actos MDL did not begin until 2011, the spoliation ruling focused on a litigation hold issued by the manufacturer in 2002 that involved the same drug. The broadly worded hold required the manufacturer to retain “any and all documents and electronic data which discuss, mention or relate to Actos.” The hold had never been lifted and had been refreshed multiple times between 2002 and 2011.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

more+
less-

Morrison & Foerster LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×