In Re: Abilify (Aripiprazole) Products Liability Litigation

The plaintiffs moved for spoliation sanctions under Rule 37(e) for the defendant’s to preserve email from three custodians between 2002-2006, approximately 10 years prior to the institution of litigation. The emails had been deleted because of defendant’s 60-day retention policy. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should have reasonably anticipated litigation because of scientific literature related drug class of drug and other litigation regarding drugs in the same class (that allegedly limited control of gambling behavior). The court determined that industry wide events pertaining to other drugs and other plaintiffs and scientific dialogue and literature were not sufficient to trigger the defendant’s preservation duties. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claims that a duty to preserve was required by FDA document retention regulations pertaining to adverse drug impacts. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that retention obligations owed to third parties under contractual agreements provided a vehicle for sanctions under Rule 37.

PLAINTIFFS’ SPOLIATION AND RULE 37 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR SPOLIATION AND RULE 37 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

Affidavit of Eric M. Lindenfeld, Esq. in Support of Plaintiffs’ Spoliation and Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions

DEFENDANT OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’SPOLIATION AND RULE 37 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS SPOLIATION AND RULE 37 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINSTOTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Spoliation and Rule 37 Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc,