Martin v. Actavis Pharma, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial under Rule 59(e), even though: (1) plaintiff alleged in instant lawsuit that he suffered heart attack after taking Androderm that was manufactured by defendant; (2) hours after jury found in favor of defendant, plaintiff’s counsel received discovery documents that had been requested in similar, but separate lawsuit, that included FDA letter requiring defendant to conduct trial to study potential causal link between Androderm and high blood pressure; and (3) plaintiff asserted that defendant withheld said discovery until after completion of instant trial to protect its defense strategy against plaintiff. In order to succeed under Rule 59, plaintiff was required, among other things, to establish that new evidence would have probably produced new result. Moreover,. Ct. of Appeal found that plaintiff failed to establish that FDA letter would have produced new result in instant trial, where: (1) although defendant alleged that plaintiff’s high blood pressure was one of eight potential causes of his heart attack, significance of plaintiff’s blood pressure had already been undercut by plaintiff’s counsel throughout trial; and (2) removal of defendant’s blood pressure argument left seven other alternative factors, including plaintiff’s high cholesterol, smoking, overweight BMI, pre-diabetes, family history of cardiovascular diseases, rested leg syndrome, and sleep apnea as causes for plaintiff’s heart attack.