Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
In re HIV Antitrust Litigation
Date: 05-23-2023
Case Number: 19-CV-02573
Judge: Edward M. Chen
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Fracisco County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Not available
Description:
San Francisco, California consumer law lawyers represented Plaintiffs who brought a class action case against various pharmaceutical companies claiming that violated antitrust laws.
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to exclude in which Plaintiffs seek to limit testimony from Defendants' damages expert Dr. Jena. Dr. Jena filed a supplemental report on May 11, /2023. This was in response to an updated report being provided by Plaintiffs' damages expert D. Frank. (The Court allowed an updated report which broke down damages by state. See Docket No. 1766-3 (Updated Frank Rpt.).) In his supplemental report, Dr. Jena opines, in relevant part, that
Dr. Frank's updated damages calculations still fail to account for the portion of at-issue Medicare Part D prescriptions paid by the government to the EPP class [i.e., the government payments should be counted as a set-off to the EPPs' damages]. Dr. Frank's failure to account for these payments is inconsistent with . . . the approach implemented by the two other indirect purchaser Plaintiffs' experts [the IHPPs and United), both of whom now account for government Medicare Part D payments ....
Docket No. 1850-3 (Ex. B) (Supp. Jena Rpt. ¶ 3) (emphasis added). Dr. Jena uses the word "still†because he made the same criticism with respect to Dr. Frank's original report. According to Plaintiffs, Dr. Jena should be barred from providing this testimony because, as a pure legal matter, Defendants should not be allowed to claim the government payments as a set-off.
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to exclude in which Plaintiffs seek to limit testimony from Defendants' damages expert Dr. Jena. Dr. Jena filed a supplemental report on May 11, /2023. This was in response to an updated report being provided by Plaintiffs' damages expert D. Frank. (The Court allowed an updated report which broke down damages by state. See Docket No. 1766-3 (Updated Frank Rpt.).) In his supplemental report, Dr. Jena opines, in relevant part, that
Dr. Frank's updated damages calculations still fail to account for the portion of at-issue Medicare Part D prescriptions paid by the government to the EPP class [i.e., the government payments should be counted as a set-off to the EPPs' damages]. Dr. Frank's failure to account for these payments is inconsistent with . . . the approach implemented by the two other indirect purchaser Plaintiffs' experts [the IHPPs and United), both of whom now account for government Medicare Part D payments ....
Docket No. 1850-3 (Ex. B) (Supp. Jena Rpt. ¶ 3) (emphasis added). Dr. Jena uses the word "still†because he made the same criticism with respect to Dr. Frank's original report. According to Plaintiffs, Dr. Jena should be barred from providing this testimony because, as a pure legal matter, Defendants should not be allowed to claim the government payments as a set-off.
Outcome:
Plaintiff's motion granted.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of In re HIV Antitrust Litigation?
The outcome was: Plaintiff's motion granted.
Which court heard In re HIV Antitrust Litigation?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Fracisco County), CA. The presiding judge was Edward M. Chen.
Who were the attorneys in In re HIV Antitrust Litigation?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best San Francisco Consumer Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Not available.
When was In re HIV Antitrust Litigation decided?
This case was decided on May 23, 2023.