Krueger

Krueger v. Wyeth Inc

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 1, 20193:03-cv-02496California3,810 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Wyeth, Inc., and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (“Defendants”) filed a motion to amend the scheduling order to reopen discovery and for permission to conduct discovery of a sampling of absent class members and prescribers. Doc. No. 305. Magistrate Judge Dembin denied the discovery motion and Defendants filed an objection. Doc. No. 323, 330. After initial and supplemental briefing, Defendants’ objection is now before the Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections. BACKGROUND This consumer protection class-action lawsuit was filed in 2003. Doc. No. 1. The case was transferred to a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Doc. No. 6. After limited discovery and motions practice, this action was remanded to this District from the MDL in 2007. Doc. No. 9. On March 30, 2011, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s class certification motion, doc. no. 108, and certified the following Class: All California consumers who purchased Wyeth’s Hormone Replacement Therapy products,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.