United States District Court for The

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: In re: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : AVANDIA MDL 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 2007-MD-1871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : HON. CYNTHIA M. RUFE ALL ACTIONS : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW on this ___day of ______, 2010, upon consideration of the

Motion of Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC for a Lone Pine Case Management Order Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L), and any response and replies thereto, as well as any oral argument on said Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to produce, within 60 days: (i) expert reports satisfying the requirements of Rule 26; and

(ii) relevant medical records. Failure to comply with the terms of this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe United States District Judge

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 73

MOTION OF DEFENDANT GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC FOR A LONE PINE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 16(c)(2)(L)

As set forth in detail in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, defendant

GlaxoSmithKline LLC moves for a Lone Pine case management order in the form provided, requiring plaintiffs to produce expert reports satisfying the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, as well as relevant medical records, within 60 days or suffer dismissal with prejudice.

Dated: August 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

______Nina M. Gussack Sean P. Fahey Rachel B. Weil PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 (215) 981-4000

Attorneys for Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 3 of 73

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC FOR A LONE PINE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 16(c)(2)(L)

I. INTRODUCTION

This MDL has been pending for nearly three years. In that time, plaintiffs and their counsel have had ample opportunity to evaluate their claims in light of their experience in this litigation and the discovery that has occurred. Nevertheless, when plaintiffs have been forced to substantiate the alleged causal connections between Avandia exposure and their alleged injuries, large numbers of non-viable cases have fallen by the wayside.

Before filing plaintiffs’ complaints, their attorneys were obligated to perform an

“inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” and to conclude that plaintiffs’ “factual contentions ha[d] evidentiary support.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). For more than half of the 102 cases in Discovery Group I, there was no evidentiary support for plaintiffs’ claims that they had been injured by Avandia.1 However, these cases were culled only after GSK assumed the burden and cost of gathering and analyzing plaintiffs’ medical records.

1 A list of the 53 Discovery Group I cases that have been dismissed is attached as Exhibit A. Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 4 of 73

Plaintiffs’ lapses were not confined to early filings. As this MDL has progressed,

numerous additional cases filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 have been dismissed. While

plaintiffs’ counsel eventually stipulated to the dismissal of a small group of these cases,2 GSK was forced to file motions to dismiss many others after plaintiffs failed to provide completed fact sheets and/or basic medical records.3 Clearly, in the absence of an appropriate order, neither

GSK nor this Court can rely on plaintiffs to have performed adequate pre-complaint

investigation, or to behave proactively when claims lack merit.

GSK urges this Court to follow the lead of numerous other MDLs and to enter a

so-called Lone Pine order, requiring all plaintiffs to produce case-specific expert reports to demonstrate that they can meet their burdens of proving key elements of their claims. Such orders can be traced to the case of Lore v. Lone Pine Corp., 1986 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1626 (Law

Div. Nov. 18, 1986). In Lone Pine, plaintiffs sued for personal injuries allegedly caused by polluted waters in the Lone Pine Landfill. Six months after suit was filed, the Court, on defendants’ motion, entered a case management order requiring plaintiffs to provide “[r]eports of treating physicians and medical or other experts, supporting each individual plaintiff’s claim of injury and causation.” Lone Pine, 1986 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1626, at *3. When plaintiffs failed to

2 See, e.g., Joint Stipulations entered in Amaya v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5335; Farmer v. GSK, No. 09-cv-4463; Gray v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2315; Legros v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2006; Martin, et al. v. GSK, No. 09-cv-3285; Meiners v. GSK, No. 08-cv-2615; Morales v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5408; Ramsey v. GSK, No. 10-cv-1991; Robinson v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2314; Street v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2253. Copies of these stipulations are attached, collectively, as Exhibit B.

3 See, e.g., this Court’s orders dismissing the claims of plaintiffs in Banta v. GSK, No. 08-cv-1885; Bonin v. GSK, No. 09-cv-0082; Bridgeport v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5293; Cote v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5309; Fernandez v. GSK, No. 09-cv-3698; Froelich v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2284; Holland v. GSK, No. 08-cv-708; Hunter v. GSK, No. 09-cv-6123; Knight v. GSK, No. 08-cv-3640; Lloyd v. GSK, No. 08-cv-1580; Nigaglioni, et al. v. GSK, No. 08-cv-4539; Osborne v. GSK, No. 08-cv-2252; Pagan v. GSK, No. 07-cv-4984; Smith v. GSK, No. 09-cv-2151; Stepp v. GSK, No. 08-cv- 2251; Ware v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5295; Williams v. GSK, No. 09-cv-5240. Copies of these orders are attached, collectively, as Exhibit C.

-2- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 5 of 73

submit the required case-specific expert reports, the court dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Id. at *9-10.

In the ensuing years, Lone Pine orders have enabled courts “to identify and cull

potentially meritless claims and streamline litigation in complex cases.” Baker v. Chevron USA,

Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6601, 2007 WL 315346, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2007).4 In this

MDL, such an order is essential to force plaintiffs to confront and confirm the viability of their

claims.

II. ARGUMENT: THE PSC’S HISTORY OF MERITLESS FILINGS DEMANDS A LONE PINE ORDER

The history and maturity of this MDL demand the entry of a Lone Pine-style case

management order. Lone Pine orders “have been routinely used by courts to manage mass tort

cases.” In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 557 F. Supp. 2d 741, 743 (E.D. La. 2008), citing Acuna

v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 441 F.

Supp. 2d 567, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563, 576

(S.D. Tex. 2005) (additional citations omitted). They “are designed to handle the complex issues

and potential burdens on defendants and the court in mass tort litigation.” Acuna, 200 F.3d at

340.

4 Such orders are permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(L), which vests broad discretion in district courts to “adopt[] special procedures for managing potentially difficult or protracted actions that may involve complex issues, multiple parties, difficult legal questions, or unusual proof problems.”

-3- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 6 of 73

Lone Pine orders are particularly common in pharmaceutical MDLs.5 In In re

Rezulin, for example, Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York granted defendants’ motion for an order requiring plaintiffs—who were already required to produce completed fact sheets—to produce early case-specific expert reports. Noting that “[t]he Court is satisfied that this course is essential to the fair and efficient administration of this litigation,” Judge Kaplan ordered that every plaintiff “consider whether there are good grounds to continue the action in light of the plaintiff’s individual circumstances and the Court’s decisions.” In re Rezulin Prods.

Liab. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46919, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2005). Judge Kaplan explained,

If a plaintiff and that plaintiff’s counsel conclude that there are good grounds to continue prosecuting the plaintiff’s claim, then the plaintiff -- in addition to discharging the plaintiff’s obligation to serve timely, fully completed Fact Sheets with the necessary declaration and HIPAA-compliant authorizations -- shall serve a Rule 26(a)(2) case-specific declaration, signed and sworn to by a physician or other medical expert (“Expert Report”). . . . Each Expert Report shall include the following information: . . . The dates during which the plaintiff used Rezulin and copies of the

5 Lone Pine orders are also widely utilized in toxic tort/chemical exposure cases. See, e.g., Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 338, 340 (5th Cir. 2000) (affirming trial court’s entry of Lone Pine order requiring approximately 1,600 plaintiffs to produce expert affidavits stating that their injuries were caused by uranium exposure and providing the medical or scientific basis for that opinion); Claar v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 500-01, 503 (9th Cir. 1994) (upholding order requiring “affidavits from physicians listing each plaintiff’s specific injuries, the particular chemical(s) that in the physician’s opinion caused each injury, and the scientific basis for the physician’s conclusions”); Abuan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3 F.3d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming district court’s issuance of scheduling order that required plaintiffs, within 120 days, to file expert reports supporting their claim of exposure to chemicals in sufficient amount to cause increased risk of harm and to require medical monitoring); McManaway v. KBR, Inc., 265 F.R.D. 384, 388-89 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2009) (entering Lone Pine order requiring expert disclosures on exposure, injury, and causation); Burns v. Universal Crop Prot. Alliance, No. 4:07CV00535 SWW, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71716, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 25, 2007) (entering Lone Pine order requiring eighty-two plaintiffs to provide “affidavits from fact or expert witnesses” establishing that herbicide manufacturers caused crop damage); Baker v. Chevron USA, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-227, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54545, at *2-4, 11 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2006) (affirming dismissal of claims where plaintiff failed to comply with Lone Pine order requiring expert affidavits regarding alleged injuries from toxic chemicals emitted by a gasoline refinery); In re 1994 Exxon Chem. Plant Fire Litig., 2005 WL 6252312, at *2-3 (M.D. La. Apr. 7, 2005) (entering Lone Pine order requiring plaintiffs to “produce an affidavit from a qualified treating or other physician” and “produce some evidence linking each named plaintiff’s alleged exposure to a particular substance with an identified injury, illness, damage or other loss”).

-4- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 7 of 73

documents relied upon as evidence of such use . . . [and] [t]he expert’s opinion on causation of each claimed injury and, if the expert has such an opinion, the date of onset of each claimed injury. The declaration shall include (i) the injury or injuries . . . that the expert opines was caused by Rezulin, and (ii) all grounds for opinions expressed by the expert.

Id. at *24-26.6

Similarly, in the Bextra/Celebrex MDL, Judge Breyer entered an order7

providing,

In addition to each plaintiff’s obligation . . . to serve a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”), all responsive documents . . . , and properly executed authorizations, each plaintiff listed in Schedule A . . . and the plaintiff’s counsel, in consultation with such medical advisor(s) as they see fit to consult, shall consider whether there are good grounds to continue the action in light of the plaintiff’s individual circumstances. If so, then the plaintiff shall serve a Rule 26(a)(2) case-specific expert report regarding specific causation, signed and sworn by a physician or other medical expert . . . .

In re Bextra and Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices Prod. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1699, No.

M:05-CV-01699-CRB, Order at 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2008).

In In re Vioxx, the Vioxx MDL court rejected plaintiffs’ motion to suspend or

modify an order requiring plaintiffs opting out of a global settlement to provide case-specific

expert reports substantiating their claims, because, as here, the MDL was “no longer in its

embryonic stage.” In re Vioxx, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 744. The court observed, “[A]t this advanced

stage of the litigation, it is not too much to ask a Plaintiff to provide some kind of evidence to

6 Judge Kaplan established rolling deadlines for submissions by plaintiffs with pending claims, and required that new plaintiffs submit the required expert reports within ninety days of filing their complaints. In re Rezulin, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46919, at *24-26. After plaintiffs submitted their experts’ reports, the court entered summary judgment on the claims of 28 of the plaintiffs for failing to sustain their burden on causation. In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 441 F. Supp. 2d 567, 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

7 The Bextra/Celebrex order was entered approximately three years into the pendency of the MDL. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit D.

-5- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 8 of 73

support their claim that Vioxx caused them personal injury, whether that injury be deep vein

thrombosis, a heart attack, an ulcer, or some other malady.” Id.8

Most recently, in the Zyprexa MDL, Judge Jack Weinstein ordered plaintiffs in 61

newly filed cases to serve Rule 26(a)(2) expert reports on rolling deadlines beginning 90 days

after the order was issued, or suffer dismissal with prejudice.9 Less than two months after Judge

Weinstein entered his order, plaintiffs dismissed 29 of the 61 cases to which the order applied.10

Expert reports for the first group of five remaining cases were due on July 20, 2010. Plaintiffs did not produce expert reports for any of the cases, and defendant Eli Lilly and Company

(“Lilly”) filed motions to dismiss all five cases pursuant to Judge Weinstein’s order. On August

16, 2010, plaintiffs informed Lilly that they would be dismissing all five cases.11

In this MDL, for nearly three years, the PSC has habitually filed meritless claims

and allowed them to remain pending, usurping the resources of the parties and the Court. GSK

should not bear the burden of winnowing cases that never should have been filed. Nor should

the Court or the Special Master be saddled with consideration of claims that would not have

survived reasonable pre-complaint investigation. Instead, as the Vioxx court held, “if Plaintiffs’

counsel believe that [their] claims have merit, they must have some basis for that belief . . . [and]

8 Plaintiffs challenged the Vioxx order, arguing that it represented an abuse of the Court’s discretion because, in contrast to toxic tort cases like Acuna v. Brown & Root Inc., 200 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2000), both Merck and the Court were aware of the nature of the Vioxx plaintiffs’ injuries and of the injuries’ relationship to Merck’s conduct. See In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-30446, 2010 WL 2802352, at *6 (5th Cir. July 16, 2010). On July 16, 2010, the Fifth Circuit rejected plaintiffs’ challenge, holding, “These grounds are insufficient . . . to warrant bypassing the clear holding in Acuna that it is within a court’s discretion to take steps to manage the complex and potentially very burdensome discovery that the cases would require.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

9 In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1596 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2010) (amending initial order entered April 21, 2010). A copy of the Zyprexa order is attached as Exhibit E.

10 See Stipulation of Dismissal dated July 22, 2010, attached as Exhibit F.

11 See Stipulation of Dismissal dated August 16, 2010, attached as Exhibit G.

-6- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 9 of 73

it is reasonable to require Plaintiffs to come forward” with case-specific expert reports. In re

Vioxx, 557 F. Supp. 2d at 744.12

Accordingly, this Court should enter an order in the form provided, requiring

plaintiffs to produce, within 60 days, expert reports satisfying the requirements of Rule 26,

substantiating plaintiffs’ claims that Avandia caused them a compensable injury.

Dated: August 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

______Nina M. Gussack Sean P. Fahey Rachel B. Weil PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 (215) 981-4000

Attorneys for Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC

12 State courts managing coordinated pharmaceutical litigation also routinely utilize Lone Pine orders. See, e.g., In re: N.Y. Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., Master Index No. 752,000/00, Order, passim (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. July 7, 2004) (ordering plaintiffs to provide, within sixty days of the date of the order, case-specific expert reports with expert opinion on injury, causation, and prognosis, among other things); In re Baycol Litig., November Term, 2001, No. 0001, Order, passim (Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. Cty. Dec. 12, 2003) (granting defendants’ Lone Pine motion and requiring plaintiffs to provide case-specific expert reports). Copies of these orders are attached as Exhibit H.

-7- Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 10 of 73

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing documents were filed electronically on August 25, 2010, and are available for viewing and downloading via the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s Electronic

Case Filing (“ECF”) system. I certify that on August 25, 2010, in addition to the Notice of

Electronic Case Filing automatically generated by the ECF system, I caused the foregoing

documents to be served by e-mail and regular mail upon the following:

Joseph Zonies, Esq. Reilly Pozner LLP The Kittredge Building 511 Sixteenth Street, Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 [email protected]

Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 [email protected]

/s/ Rachel B. Weil

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 11 of 73

EXHIBIT A Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 12 of 73 53 Dismissed Cases From “Discovery Group I”

Adams v. GSK, 2:07-cv-03858-CMR Wagner v. GSK, 2:07-cv-04668-CMR Bennett v. GSK, 2:07-cv-04860-CMR Moran v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00073-CMR Kelly v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00667-CMR Sandoval v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00884-CMR Williams v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00889-CMR Slaughter v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00890-CMR Elzwahry v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00895-CMR Washington v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00896-CMR Johnson v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00897-CMR Dennard v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00898-CMR Kilgore v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00900-CMR Rohena v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00901-CMR Morhart v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00902-CMR Foster v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00903-CMR Peck v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00904-CMR Arroyo v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00905-CMR Nantista v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00906-CMR Brown v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00908-CMR Potter v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00909-CMR Hershkowitz v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00910-CMR Francis v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00913-CMR Rebo v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00915-CMR Santos v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00917-CMR Ramirez v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00919-CMR Lebron v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00920-CMR Light v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00921-CMR Cook v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00922-CMR Lewis v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00924-CMR Skeans v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00925-CMR Galford v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00926-CMR Barbera v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00927-CMR McClung v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00928-CMR Rossnagle v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00929-CMR

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 13 of 73 53 Dismissed Cases From “Discovery Group I”

Greeno v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00930-CMR Kraft v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00931-CMR Stowe v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00933-CMR Rogers v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00934-CMR Della Polla v. GSK, 2:08-cv-00938-CMR Welch v. GSK, 2:08-cv-01043-CMR Sanders v. GSK, 2:08-cv-01624-CMR Allen v. GSK, 2:08-cv-01793-CMR Kirby v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02065-CMR Wagers v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02078-CMR Pegues v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02250-CMR Crump v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02253-CMR Chandler v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02315-CMR Martin v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02346-CMR Lewis v. GSK, 2:08-cv-02354-CMR Watson v. GSK, 2:09-cv-03949-CMR Hopkins v. GSK, 2:09-cv-04011-CMR Farmer v. GSK, 2:09-cv-04463-CMR

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 14 of 73

EXHIBIT B CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05335-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 08/13/1008/25/10 PagePage 115 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In reo AV ANDIA MARKETING, SALES MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELA TES TO: Estate ofNancy Catherine Amaya (clo Larry Amaya) Case No. 2:09-cv-05335-CMR v, SmilhKline Beecham Corporalion d/b/a GlaxoSmithKUne

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff Estate

of Nancy Catherine Amaya (c/o Larry Amaya), through its counsel, Branch Law Finn, and

Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"), through its

counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, that all claims in the above-captioned action asserted by Plaintiff against GSK are dismissed with prejUdice, with each party to bear its own costs.

Dated: A st 6, 2010 1

Turner W, Brane An ny Vale Branch La Inn Andrew E. Schinzel 2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW Pepper Hamilton LLP Albuquerque, NM 87104 3000 Two Logan Square (505) 243-3500 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Attorney for Plaintiff (215) 981-4000

Attorneys for Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline

,0 ORDERED (j I '/i, Dated~ ./Jy-&,2010 on_ Cyntbia M. RuCe olted States District Judge CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-04463-CMR Document Document 769 5 FiledFiled 03/01/1008/25/10 PagePage 116 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02315-CMR Document Document 769 5 FiledFiled 04/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 117 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02006-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 07/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 118 of of 1 73 CMR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DlSTlUCT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: AVANDIA MARKETIN:~J[J4rnfrnr:::...'~~~ PRACTICES AND PRODUC ~ L1T10ATION ••...J.U1.••'" 2 20m THIS DOCUMENT RELATE [)m.id Legl"Os v. SmilhKIi/1e B echabn~'(lr'1r'f.IH.__-'-.J se No. 2:09·cv·02006·CMR d/b/a GlaxoSlllilhKflne

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by lind between Plaintiff David

Legros. through his counsel. Behnke. Martin & Schulte, LLC, and Defendant SmithKlinc

Beecham Corpomtion d/b/a Glaxo.SmithKline ("GSK"). through its counsel. Pepper Hamilton

LLP. that all claims in thc above-ellptioned aClion asserted by Plaintiff against GSK are

dismissed with prejudice. with each party to benr its own costs.

JR!P/Iitrd W. Schulte Wi lis J. Bren an L-Bchnire, Martin & SchulLe. LLC Andrew E. Sehi .el 131 N. Ludlow Ave.• Suite 840 Pepper Hamilton LLP Dayton,OH 45402 3000 Two Logan Square (937) 435·7500 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 191Q3-2799 ALtomey for Plaintiff (215) 981·4000

Attorneys for Defendant SmithKline Beecham Corperation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline

H . Cynthia M. Rufe Ualted States DL.lrict Judge CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-03285-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 07/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 119 of of 3 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES MDLNO.1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

TIDS DOCUMENT RELATES TO;

Karen Marlin and Keith Kindle. Individually andon Case No: 2:09-cv-03285-CMR Behalfo/the Estate o/Lewis Freeman Kindle v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiffs Karen

Martin and Keith Kindle, individually and on behalf of the estate of Lewis Freeman Kindle, and

Defendant GlaxoSmithK1ine LLC. formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Cooperation

("GSK"), through its counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, that all claims in the above-captioned action asserted by Plaintiffs against GSK are dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-03285-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 07/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 220 of of 3 73

Dated: June 20,2010

ck'C14hL- L [V)~ Karen Martin Gussack (Bar No. 31054) 840 Tealwood Circle Noi!1 . Ix (Bar No. 70077) Flower Mound, TX 75028 Jessica A. Rickabaugh (Bar No. 200189) PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Strccts ~r---- Philadelphia, PA 19103 607 Oak Meadow Lane (215) 981-4000 Georgetown, TX 78628 Email: [email protected]

Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant

QO~£dc at!Cynthia M. Rufe United States District Judge CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-03285-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 07/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 321 of of 3 73

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing documents were filed electronically on June 30, 2010, and are available for viewing and downloading via the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's Electronic

Case Filing (UECF") system. I certifY that on June 30, 20 I 0, in addition to the Notice of

Electronic Case Filing automatically generated by the ECF system, I caused the foregoing documents to be served by regular mail upon the following:

Karen Martin 840 Tealwood Circle Flower Mound, TX 75028

Keith Kindle 607 Oak Meadow Lane Georgetown, TX 78628

lsi Jessiea A. Rickabaugh Jessica A. Rickabaugh CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-02615-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 03/16/0908/25/10 PagePage 122 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05408-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 08/13/1008/25/10 PagePage 123 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYI, VANlA

In reo AVANOIA MARKETING, SALES MOL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Mary Morales v. SmilhKline Beecham Corporation Case No. 2:09-cv-05408-CMR dlbla GfaxoSmilhKlille

STlPULAnON AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff Mary

Morales, through her counsel, Branch Law Firm, and Defendant SmithKline Beecham

Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK"), through its counsel, Pepper Hamilton LLP, that all claims in the above-captioned action asserted by Plaintiff against GSK are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs.

Dated: August 6, 2010

Turner W. Branc EUen Branch Law . Andre E. Schinzel 202 rande Boulevard NW Pepper Hamilton LLP Albuquerque, NM 87104 3000 Two Logan Square (505) 243-3500 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Attorney for Plaintiff (215) 981-4000

Attorneys for Defendant SmithKIine Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline

so ORDERED

Dated~ . IIM.2010 ~~~• Cynthia M. Rufe U oiled States District J ud ge CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:10-cv-01991-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 06/30/1008/25/10 PagePage 124 of of 2 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:10-cv-01991-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 06/30/1008/25/10 PagePage 225 of of 2 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02314-CMR Document Document 769 5 FiledFiled 04/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 126 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02253-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 07/07/1008/25/10 PagePage 127 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ------___r:::=::::::;::;==-==.-....- ..... In re: AVANDIA MARKETlN'-\.l;"'f\L .'" ~ 0~/7lg No. 1871 P'RACTICES AND PRODUCT 'iJ LITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES ShelelM Street \', SmirhKlille Betl:f'~~'JJ3J.w:.rll'1I.a1L.-,-_-.J No. 2:09-cv-02253-CMR d/b/a GIa.~oSmirhKline

STJPULAnON AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by nnd bel...."'en Plaintiff

Shcletha Street, through hcr counsel, Behnke, Martin & Schulte. LLC, and Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corporation dlbfa GlaxoSmilhKline ("aSK"), through its counsel. Pepper

Hamilton LLP, that all claims in the above-captioned action asserted by Plaintiff against GSK

are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own cOSls.

Pz/~ 8, (J! h~ Seth R.. Oltman Anthony Vale Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Str~'ets Philadelphia. ['A 19103-2799 Attorney for Plaintiff (215) 981·4000

Attorneys for Dcfelydant SmithKline Beecham Corporation dfbJa GlaxoSmithKlin" Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 28 of 73

EXHIBIT C CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-01885-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 07/01/0908/25/10 PagePage 129 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-00082-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 05/28/1008/25/10 PagePage 130 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : CECIL BONIN, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-cv-0082 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Threshold Information Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual

Case Docket Doc. No. 3], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05293-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 05/28/1008/25/10 PagePage 131 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : ROBERT BRIDGEPORT, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-cv-5293 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Basic Medical Records Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50

(“PTO 50") [Individual Case Docket Doc. No. 3], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05309-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 06/30/1008/25/10 PagePage 132 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 2:07-md-01871-CMR LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : JANET COTE, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-cv-05309 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Basic Medical Records Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50

(“PTO 50”) [Individual Case Docket Doc. No. 2], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ CYNTHIA M. RUFE

______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-03698-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 03/08/1008/25/10 PagePage 133 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : JUANITA FERNANDEZ, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-3698 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 2], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02284-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 04/27/1008/25/10 PagePage 134 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : ROBERT FROEHLICH, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-2284 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 3], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-00708-CMR Document Document 769 8 FiledFiled 09/16/0908/25/10 PagePage 135 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : J. TERRY HOLLAND, et al., : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 08-cv-708 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 6], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-06123-CMR Document Document 769 5 FiledFiled 04/27/1008/25/10 PagePage 136 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : ETTA MAE HUNTER, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-6123 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 3], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-03640-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 06/15/1008/25/10 PagePage 137 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : CAROLYN KNIGHT, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 08-cv-3640 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 6], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-01580-CMR Document Document 769 12 Filed 08/25/1007/13/10 Page 381 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 2:07-md-01871-CMR LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : LINDA LLOYD, : on Behalf of Estate of Michael Lloyd, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 08-cv-01580 : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. : d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact

Sheet or Basic Medical Records Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50”) [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 11], to which no response was filed within the twenty-day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-04539-CMR Document Document 769 4 FiledFiled 05/07/0908/25/10 PagePage 139 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : TEODOSIO NIGAGLIONI-MARTINEZ, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 08-CV-04539 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of May 2009, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 2], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-02252-CMR Document Document 769 7 FiledFiled 04/13/1008/25/10 PagePage 140 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:07-cv-04984-CMR Document Document 769 11 Filed 08/25/1005/07/09 Page 411 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : MARIA DEL ROSARIO PAGAN, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 07-CV-04984 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of May 2009, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 9], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-02151-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 03/01/1008/25/10 PagePage 142 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : MDL No. 1871 LITIGATION : 07-md-01871 ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : Bobby J. Smith v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., : No. 09-cv-2151 d/b/a/ GlaxoSmithKline : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff’s Fact Sheet Pursuant to Pretrial

Order Number 50 [Doc. No. 2], and hearing no opposition thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:08-cv-02251-CMR Document Document 769 6 FiledFiled 04/13/1008/25/10 PagePage 143 of of 1 73 CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05295-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 07/13/1008/25/10 PagePage 144 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 2:07-md-01871-CMR LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : CHRIS WARE, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-cv-05295 : SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP. : d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide a Plaintiff Fact

Sheet or Basic Medical Records Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50”) [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 2], to which no response was filed within the twenty-day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. CaseCase 2:07-md-01871-CMR 2:09-cv-05240-CMR Document Document 769 3 FiledFiled 05/28/1008/25/10 PagePage 145 of of 1 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______: IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES : MDL No. 1871 PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY : 07-md-01871 LITIGATION : ______: : THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : ALICE WILLIAMS, : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO. 09-cv-5240 : GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC, et al., : Defendants. : ______:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of Defendant

SmithKline Beecham Corp. d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Provide Basic Medical Records Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 50 (“PTO 50") [Individual Case

Docket Doc. No. 2], to which no response was filed within the twenty day response period provided for in PTO 50, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s

Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ______CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J. Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 46 of 73

EXHIBIT D CaseCase M:05-cv-01699-CRB 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document Document 2521 769 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/01/2008 Page Page 47 of 1 73 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11 IN RE: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX CASE NO. M:05-CV-01699-CRB MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND 12 PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1699 13 This Order Relates to: PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29: PROVISION OF 14 CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERT REPORTS ALL PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN REGARDING SPECIFIC CAUSATION 15 SCHEDULE A.

17 18 1. Order Applicable to All Cases Listed in Schedule A. This Order shall 19 apply to all plaintiffs listed in Schedule A.

20 2. Plaintiffs’ Obligation to Service Case-Specific Expert Reports. In addition 21 to each plaintiff’s obligation under Pretrial Order No. 6 to serve a Plaintiff Fact Sheet (“PFS”), all 22 responsive documents (or a written notice that none are in the possession of plaintiff or plaintiff’s 23 counsel), and properly executed authorizations, each plaintiff listed in Schedule A (including each 24 personal representative of an estate of any deceased or of any incompetent user of Celebrex® 25 and/or Bextra®) and the plaintiff’s counsel, in consultation with such medical advisor(s) as they 26 see fit to consult, shall consider whether there are good grounds to continue the action in light of 27 the plaintiff’s individual circumstances. If so, then the plaintiff shall serve a Rule 26(a)(2) case- 28 specific expert report regarding specific causation, signed and sworn to by a physician or other -1- PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29: PROVISION OF CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERT REPORTS REGARDING SPECIFIC CAUSATION – M:05-CV-01699-CRB

CaseCase M:05-cv-01699-CRB 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document Document 2521 769 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/01/2008 Page Page 48 of 2 73 of 4

1 medical expert (a “Case-Specific Expert Report”). Plaintiffs shall send the Case-Specific Expert

2 Reports to Defendants’ counsel by a manner agreed to by the parties.

3 3. Contents of Case-Specific Expert Report. Each Case-Specific Expert 4 Report shall include the following information: 5 a. Plaintiff’s Information. The plaintiff’s name and date of birth; 6 b. Expert’s Information. The name, professional address, and 7 curriculum vitae of the expert, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within 8 the preceding ten years; 9 c. Plaintiff’s Medical Records. A list of the plaintiff’s medical 10 records reviewed by the expert prior to the preparation of the Case-Specific Expert Report by 11 Bates number, as well as copies of any such records not posted on the web site of the medical 12 record vendor hired jointly by the parties; 13 d. Use Dates. The dates during which the plaintiff used Celebrex® 14 and/or Bextra® and references to the Bates numbers of the particular pages relied upon as 15 evidence of such use (or the actual pages if the pages are not Bates stamped); 16 e. Plaintiff’s Prescribing Physician. The name(s) of the physician(s) 17 who prescribed Bextra and/or Celebrex to the plaintiff; 18 f. Plaintiff’s Injury. Whether the plaintiff’s medical records report 19 that the plaintiff experienced a myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, sudden death, or any other 20 injury while the plaintiff was taking Celebrex® and/or Bextra® and, if so: (i) the nature of the

21 alleged injury; (ii) the date of the alleged injury; and (iii) references to the particular pages relied 22 upon as evidence of such myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, sudden death, or other injury.

23 4. Schedule for Serving Case-Specific Expert Reports. Each plaintiff listed in 24 Schedule A shall have 45 days from entry of this Order to serve upon defendants’ counsel a 25 complete and signed Case-Specific Expert Report. 26 5. Dismissal of Plaintiffs Who Fail to Provide Case-Specific Expert Reports. 27 Any plaintiff who fails to provide a Case-Specific Expert Report that complies with this Order 28 -2- PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29: PROVISION OF CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERT REPORTS REGARDING SPECIFIC CAUSATION – M:05-CV-01699-CRB

CaseCase M:05-cv-01699-CRB 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document Document 2521 769 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/01/2008 Page Page 49 of 3 73 of 4

1 within the applicable timeline will be subject to having his or her claims, as well as any derivative 2 claim(s), dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the following procedure:

3 a. Deficiency Letter. When any plaintiff fails to provide a Case- 4 Specific Expert Report that complies with this Order, defendants’ counsel may write a letter to 5 plaintiff’s counsel and identify with particularity the alleged deficiency (“the deficiency letter”). 6 The letter shall state that the plaintiff will have seven (7) days to cure the alleged deficiency and 7 that absent cure of the alleged deficiency within that time (or within any extension of that time as 8 agreed to by the parties), defendants may move for dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, including 9 dismissal with prejudice. 10 b. Compliance Motion. If plaintiff’s counsel does not provide a Case- 11 Specific Expert Report that complies with this Order within seven days of receipt of the 12 deficiency letter, defendants’ counsel may file a motion with the Special Master seeking an order 13 requiring plaintiff to comply with this Order or face a motion to dismiss with prejudice, or other 14 sanctions (a “compliance motion”). Such compliance motions shall be heard on an expedited 15 basis. A compliance motion may be noticed fourteen (14) calendar days before the hearing date, 16 with any opposition to be filed seven (7) calendar days before the hearing and any reply to be 17 filed three (3) calendar days before the hearing. 18 c. Compliance Order. If the Special Master determines that a plaintiff 19 has failed to provide a Case-Specific Expert Report that complies with this Order, the Special 20 Master shall order plaintiff to comply with this Order within seven (7) days or face dismissal or

21 other appropriate sanctions as determined by the Court (“the compliance order”). 22 d. Failure to Comply with Special Master’s Order and Motion to

23 Dismiss. If plaintiff does not comply with the compliance order within seven (7) days, 24 defendants’ counsel may file a motion with the Court to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice 25 or for other appropriate sanctions (a “motion to dismiss”). No further notice to plaintiff’s counsel 26 shall be required. Such motions to dismiss shall be heard on an expedited basis. A motion to 27 dismiss may be noticed fourteen (14) calendar days before the hearing date, with any opposition 28 to be filed seven (7) calendar days before the hearing and any reply to be filed three (3) calendar -3- PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29: PROVISION OF CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERT REPORTS REGARDING SPECIFIC CAUSATION – M:05-CV-01699-CRB

CaseCase M:05-cv-01699-CRB 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document Document 2521 769 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/01/2008 Page Page 50 of 4 73 of 4

1 days before the hearing. If the Court determines that plaintiff has not complied with the 2 compliance order, it may dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice or impose other sanctions as it 3 deems appropriate.

4 6. A Written Report to the Court. On or before September 29, 2008, the 5 parties, either jointly or separately, shall provide the Court with a written report on the status of 6 plaintiffs’ compliance with PTO 29 and a recommendation as to how the Court should proceed to 7 expeditiously resolve any pending cases. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: August 1, 2008 /s/ HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 29: PROVISION OF CASE-SPECIFIC EXPERT REPORTS REGARDING SPECIFIC CAUSATION – M:05-CV-01699-CRB

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 51 of 73

EXHIBIT E Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 52 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 53 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 54 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 55 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 56 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 57 of 73

EXHIBIT F Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR1:09-cv-04904-JBW -RLM Document Document 769 8 Filed Filed 08/25/10 07/22/10 Page Page 58 1 of of 73 3 J?~' 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~(rV{ 0 \1 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~11- FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICEc In re: ZYPREXA u.s. DISTRICT COURT ED.I\ Y PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGA nON MDL NO. 1596 * JUL 2 2 2010 ·,ft THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: BROOKLYN OFFICI: Pedro Baggio v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4904

Ira Bard v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4905

Cindy Bleichner v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4910

Kevin Brown v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4917

Ruby Brown-Ross v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4918

Debora Chaplin v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4927

Milton Cook v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4928

Dorine Crawford v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4929

Ricardo Cruz v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4930

Attila Csenterics v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4931

James Richard Dees v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4933

Gary Drechsel v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4954

Kyle Dumas v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4950

Jimmy Epting v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4977

John Gage v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4978

James Harguth v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4973

Stephen Hennek v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4975

Paul Hennig v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4997

Chad Heslar v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4998 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR1:09-cv-04904-JBW -RLM Document Document 769 8 Filed Filed 08/25/10 07/22/10 Page Page 59 2 of of 73 3

Michelle Johansen v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4945

Anthony Johnson v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4946

Brian Kufrovich v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4957

Jauan Mason v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4955

Forrest Maim in v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4969

Philip Maulhardt v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4956

Cynthia McLean v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4960

Naoma Miller v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4963

Richard No Heart v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4967

Eric Lee Piper v. Eli Lilly and Company 09-cv-4980 ------)(

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs and defendant agree, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(I)(A)(ii) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that all claims asserted by plaintiffs against defendant are dismissed without prejudice. The parties will bear their own costs and counsel fees.

/s/ David J. Dickens /s/ Samuel J. Abate, Jr. Michael J. Miller Samuel J. Abate, Jr. David 1. Dickens The New York Times Building The Miller Firm, LLC 620 Eighth Avenue 108 Railroad Avenue New York, New York 10018 (540) 672-4224 (212) 808-2700

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and

Andrew R. Rogoff Pepper Hamilton LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 981-4000

Attorneys for Defendant Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR1:09-cv-04904-JBW -RLM Document Document 769 8 Filed Filed 08/25/10 07/22/10 Page Page 60 3 of of 73 3

Approved by the Court: /vlt/~ Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 61 of 73

EXHIBIT G Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR1:09-cv-04906-JBW -RLM Document Document 769 8 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/16/10 Page Page 62 1 of of 73 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re: ZYPREXA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL NO. 1596 ------THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : : Michael Baselice v. Eli Lilly and Company : 09-cv-4906 : Lloyde Blanks, Jr. v. Eli Lilly and Company : 09-cv-4908 : Leonard Bonome v. Eli Lilly and Company : 09-cv-4913 : Wade Boyette v. Eli Lilly and Company : 09-cv-4916 : Jason Camp v. Eli Lilly and Company : 09-cv-4920

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs and defendant agree, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that all claims asserted by plaintiffs against defendant

are dismissed without prejudice. The parties will bear their own costs and counsel fees.

/s/ David J. Dickens______/s/ Andrew E. Schinzel______Michael J. Miller Nina M. Gussack David J. Dickens Andrew R. Rogoff The Miller Firm, LLC Andrew E. Schinzel 108 Railroad Avenue Pepper Hamilton LLP Orange, VA 22960 3000 Two Logan Square (540) 672-4224 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (215) 981-4000

and

Samuel J. Abate, Jr. (SA 00915) PEPPER HAMILTON LLP The New York Times Building 37th Floor 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 (212) 808-2700

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR1:09-cv-04906-JBW -RLM Document Document 769 8 Filed Filed 08/25/10 08/16/10 Page Page 63 2 of of 73 2

Approved by the Court:

______Weinstein, J.

Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 64 of 73

EXHIBIT H Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 65 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 66 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 67 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 68 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 69 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 70 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 71 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 72 of 73 Case 2:07-md-01871-CMR Document 769 Filed 08/25/10 Page 73 of 73