Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
John Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Citations: 739 F.3d 401; 2014 WL 44028Docket: 12-3200
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; January 7, 2014; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OMJP) appeals the district court's denial of its motion for relief from judgment in the Levaquin Products Liability Litigation case. The court had previously upheld a jury's compensatory damages award of $630,000 to John Schedin for injuries linked to the antibiotic Levaquin but reversed a punitive damages award due to insufficient evidence of OMJP's misconduct. OMJP's motion for relief, filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3), claimed that Schedin's expert, Dr. Martin T. Wells, failed to disclose relevant calculations during discovery, which could have undermined his credibility and Schedin's case. OMJP argued this constituted newly discovered evidence and alleged misconduct by Schedin, warranting relief. The district court denied the motion, leading to OMJP's appeal. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision, noting that Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief under exceptional circumstances and that the district court has broad discretion in such matters. OMJP's assertion of an abuse of discretion based on Schedin's late disclosure of Dr. Wells's calculations is addressed, but the court maintains the lower court's ruling. To succeed in a claim of 'newly discovered evidence' under Rule 60(b)(2), OMJP must prove four elements: (1) the evidence was discovered post-trial; (2) due diligence was exercised in its discovery; (3) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) it is likely that a new trial would yield a different outcome. The district court acknowledged OMJP's due diligence but denied the motion, concluding the new evidence was cumulative or impeaching and not likely to affect the trial's outcome. The court noted that Dr. Wells's calculations, while possibly material, did not undermine his testimony and that OMJP's liability was based on the entire record, not solely on Dr. Wells's testimony regarding toxicity. Regarding OMJP's misconduct claim under Rule 60(b)(3), OMJP needed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Schedin committed fraud or misconduct that hindered OMJP's defense. The district court found no such evidence, noting that the absence of Dr. Wells's calculations did not prevent a robust defense and any alleged misconduct did not justify a new trial. The court emphasized that a Rule 60(b) motion is denied when the moving party fails to show that the alleged misrepresentations or new evidence would probably alter the trial outcome. The judgment of the district court is affirmed, with no abuse of discretion found in its rulings.