Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Lewis v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Case Number:
2:12-cv-04301
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Aylstock Witkin
- Butler Snow LLP
- Edwards & De la Cerda
- Freese & Goss
- O'Melveny & Myers
- Reed Smith
- Thomas Combs
- Wagstaff & Cartmell
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
February 18, 2014
J&J Wins 1st Vaginal Mesh Bellwether Trial
Johnson & Johnson on Tuesday won the first bellwether case against it in the multidistrict litigation over alleged transvaginal mesh injuries, in a roughly five-day trial that concluded when a West Virginia federal judge granted the defendants' motion for a judgment.
-
February 14, 2014
J&J's Discovery Mishaps Barred From Vaginal Mesh Trial
A West Virginia federal judge on Thursday barred a plaintiff from telling the jury in a bellwether trial against Johnson & Johnson over vaginal mesh injuries that the company lost potential evidence, even though a magistrate judge recently ruled it had done so.
-
February 07, 2014
J&J Wants Discovery Mishaps Barred From Vaginal Mesh Trial
Johnson & Johnson pressed a West Virginia federal judge on Thursday to bar the plaintiff in an upcoming bellwether trial in multidistrict litigation over vaginal mesh injuries from telling the jury that the company lost potential evidence, arguing it was irrelevant to the case.