Not Everyone Can Hop on a Bandwagon: Product Identification Still Matters

Litigation attorney Eric Alexander published a blog for Drug & Device Law discussing Leon v. Zydus Pharms. Inc., a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granting summary judgment to a defendant manufacturer after the plaintiff failed to present any evidence of product identification. The case involved a plaintiff who suffered a stroke and sued after a single lot of the defendant's generic carvedilol was recalled as a result of the inclusion of paroxetine tablets mixed with the carvedilol tablets. Mr. Alexander explains that the plaintiff never produced records showing he was dispensed the defendant's carvedilol – including from the recalled lot, which was not distributed to the plaintiff's location. He argues that the case exemplifies "bandwagoning" that should be addressed early through limited discovery on product identification, rather than consuming nearly four years of litigation before being resolved on summary judgment. He also highlights the court's straightforward application of the Rule 56 burden-shifting framework and suggests that fee shifting may be warranted to deter similar suits lacking any semblance of product identification proof.

READ: Not Everyone Can Hop on a Bandwagon: Product Identification Still Matters