Attributable to Erik Haas, Worldwide Vice President of Litigation, Johnson & Johnson:
“The Special Master rightly excluded key opinions by plaintiffs’ experts and endorsed virtually all the opinions of defendants’ experts.
“The Special Master erroneously allowed certain other plaintiffs’ experts opinions to proceed based upon the same flawed reasoning employed in her 2020 decision. In doing so, she disregarded that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was subsequently revised to clarify that judges have a ‘gatekeeping duty’ to hold plaintiffs to their burden of proving their expert opinions are reliable. The Special Master breached that duty, failing to conduct the requisite rigorous review of the studies cited by the plaintiffs’ experts.
“We therefore will promptly appeal to the District Court the erroneous aspects of the recommendation, which has no legal import until that appeal is resolved.
“Importantly, this recommendation has no impact on our overall litigation strategy--except to incrementally strengthen our position. We will continue to aggressively defend against these meritless cases one-by-one because valid science and the law are squarely on our side and will only continue to strengthen in our favor moving forward. We will also continue to bring affirmative actions to expose the insidious tactics of the plaintiffs’ bar and litigation funders that are harming U.S. businesses and U.S. competitiveness.
“We have a track record of winning at trial or on appeal, and, in fact, have prevailed in 16 of 17 ovarian cases tried and taken through appeal in the last 11 years.”
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Johnson & Johnson has 14 days to appeal the recommendation to U.S. District Court Judge Michael Shipp. There is no timeline for a final decision from Judge Shipp.
- Other Daubert hearings and subsequent recommendations related to specific witnesses and topics will continue over the next few months.
- The Daubert decision is not a determination by the court on the validity of the plaintiffs’ allegations.