Second Circuit Labels Expert’s Testimony a Sham in Pharmaceutical Products Liability Litigation

by Cohen & Gresser LLP

As a little kid, I did not have an immediate appreciation that my actions could get me into trouble, and so, without thought, I told the truth.  My dad would ask, “Did you write your name on the wall?”  I would respond, “Absolutely.  Isn’t it great?”  My mom would ask, “Did you finish your chicken?” and I would respond, “No, I fed it to the dog.”  It was only after seeing their reactions and realizing that I had something at stake (television time) that I embellished my answers:  “Oh, you were talking about the wall in the living room.  I thought my teacher had called you to tell you how great I was at writing my name on the blackboard, which is attached to a wall.  I don’t know who wrote on the living room wall, but if I had to guess it was [one of my sisters] trying to frame me.”  Or, “I did finish the chicken, it was so good that I took an extra piece to share it with the world, and I started with the dog.”  Suffice to say, my revised stories did not have their desired effect, and my parents would rightfully punish me.

Like my mischievous younger self, parties trying to wriggle out of summary judgment have been known to bend the facts toward the incredible.  However, like my parents, courts may not be willing to entertain such contrivances.  Though determinations of a witness’s credibility are normally left to juries, as the Second Circuit recently held in Secrest v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp., 11-cv-4358, slip op. (January 30, 2013), when a witness completely contradicts his prior testimony, a court considering a motion for summary judgment may properly disregard such testimony as a “sham.” 

Secrest is part of In re: Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, an MDL pending in the Southern District of New York.  Fosamax is a prescription drug manufactured by Merck commonly used to treat bone conditions such as osteoporosis.  The claims in the MDL relate to the alleged link between Fosamax and osteonecrosis – bone death – of the jaw (“ONJ”).  In July 2005, after receiving reports in 2003 and 2004 of Fosamax patients developing ONJ, Merck and the FDA agreed that Merck would include a warning regarding the reports in the Fosamax label. 

Plaintiff Linda Secrest took Fosamax from 1998 to 2005 to prevent factures and osteoporosis.  From June 1998 to March 2003, Dr. Lawrence Epstein, Secrest’s long-time primary care physician, prescribed Fosamax to her.  Starting in December 2003, Dr. Dennis Hidlebaugh was the prescribing physician.  In 2004, after Secrest developed a serious and chronic infection in and around her jaw, she was diagnosed with ONJ, and was instructed to stop taking Fosamax, which she did in April 2005.

In 2008, Dr. Epstein was deposed as a fact witness.  At that deposition, he testified that he “‘did not know that [Secrest] was on Fosamax from 2003 to 2005 because [he] wanted her on [a different drug].’”  In January 2011, Merck filed for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that plaintiff’s failure to warn claims fail because, if Dr. Epstein were not aware of plaintiff’s Fosamax use, he could not have been affected by any allegedly inadequate warning. 

In response to Merck’s motion for summary judgment, Secrest did not offer any evidence from Dr. Hidlebaugh, who was the prescribing physician when she developed ONJ.  Instead, Secrest offered the “expert” testimony of Dr. Epstein, who, she claimed, had continued to consult with her about her Fosamax use.  Dr. Epstein, now a paid plaintiff’s expert, was re-deposed in February 2011 where he “told a diametrically different story” than he told in 2008.  Whereas in 2008, he testified that he was not aware that plaintiff was continuing to take Fosamax from 2003-2005 and that he had advised Dr. Hidlebaugh to discontinue its use, in 2011, he testified that he knew plaintiff was taking Fosamax in 2004 and 2005 and he had advised Dr. Hidlebaugh to continue the Fosamax treatment.   He also testified that “had Merck warned him about the risk of ONJ, he would have recommended that Secrest stop taking Fosamax.”  

Conveniently for plaintiff, Dr. Epstein’s 2011 expert testimony, unlike his 2008 fact-witness testimony, could help plaintiff avoid summary judgment.  Despite the contradictory nature of the new testimony, plaintiff never “proffered a plausible explanation that would allow a reasonable jury to reconcile the inconsistencies in Dr. Epstein’s statements.”  Instead, plaintiff argued that questions of credibility belong to the jury.   

The Court did not agree.  In affirming the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment, the Second Circuit held that the District Court properly disregarded Dr. Epstein’s new “clearly contradictory” testimony based on the “sham issue of fact” doctrine, “which prohibits a party from defeating summary judgment simply by submitting an affidavit that contradicts the party’s previous sworn testimony.”  Specifically, the Court noted, “the doctrine applies to stop Secrest from manufacturing a factual dispute by submitting testimony from an expert whom she tendered, where the relevant contradictions between the first and second depositions are unequivocal and inescapable, unexplained, arose after the motion for summary judgment was filed, and are central to the claim at issue.”  

For defendants, it is encouraging that courts will summarily disregard such “sham” testimony rather than defer such issues to juries.  And, to come full circle, as a father, I am similarly able to see through my daughter’s attempts at obfuscation.  However, unlike the Court in Secrest, I normally let such things slide because she is just too cute (and she is only four).  I am not in a position to say the same for Dr. Epstein and Secrest.

About the Author

Mr. Spatz has extensive experience handling complex litigation and arbitration, particularly products liability, class action, and multi-district litigation.  He has supervised discovery in multi-district federal litigation and state court cases, devised modes for valuing plaintiffs’ claims, and designed and managed large-scale complex settlement programs for multi-district products liability actions.  He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was Associate and Senior Editor of the Journal of Constitutional Law, earned a Master of Bioethics from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and graduated from Brown University with honors.

About Cohen & Gresser

Cohen & Gresser is a boutique law firm with offices in New York and Seoul. We represent clients in complex litigation and corporate transactions throughout the world. Founded in 2002, the firm has grown to over fifty lawyers in four practice groups: Litigation and Arbitration; Corporate Law; Intellectual Property and Licensing; and White Collar Defense, Regulatory Enforcement and Internal Investigations. Our attorneys are graduates of the nation's best law schools and have exceptional credentials. We are committed to providing the efficiency and personal service of a boutique firm and the superb quality and attention to detail that are hallmarks of the top firms where we received our training.

NEW YORK | SEOUL                           PH: +1 212 957 7600

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.

© Cohen & Gresser LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cohen & Gresser LLP

Cohen & Gresser LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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.