Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 1 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

AMY W. SCHULMAN DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335-4501 [email protected] STUART M. GORDON (SBN: 037477) GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 [email protected] MICHAEL C. ZELLERS (SBN: 146904) TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants PFIZER INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, AND G.D. SEARLE LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE CELEBREX AND BEXTRA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to DANIEL SILVER, et. al., Plaintiffs, vs. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, and G.D. SEARLE, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MDL Docket No. 1699 CASE NO. 3:07-cv-5704-CRB PFIZER INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, AND G.D. SEARLE, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREIN

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-1ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 2 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

NOW COME Defendants Pfizer Inc. (improperly captioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint as "Pfizer, Inc.") ("Pfizer"), Pharmacia Corporation ("Pharmacia"), and G.D. Searle LLC (improperly captioned in Plaintiffs' Complaint as "G.D. Searle, LLC") ("Searle") (collectively "Defendants"), and file this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint ("Complaint"), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Complaint does not state in sufficient detail when Plaintiffs were prescribed or used Bextra® (valdecoxib) ("Bextra®"). Accordingly, this Answer can only be drafted generally. Defendants may seek leave to amend this Answer when discovery reveals the specific time periods in which Plaintiffs were prescribed and used Bextra®. II. ANSWER Response to Allegations Regarding Parties 1. Defendants admit that Plaintiffs brought this civil action seeking monetary damages, but

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief or damages. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
-2ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 3 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

2.

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiffs' age and citizenship, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 3. Defendants admit that Pfizer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New York. Defendants admit that Pharmacia acquired Searle in 2000 and that, as the result of a merger in April 2003, Searle and Pharmacia became subsidiaries of Pfizer. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States, including the States of California, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Maryland, to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 4. Defendants admit that Searle is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

place of business in Illinois. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 5. Defendants admit that Pharmacia is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New Jersey. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States, including the States of California, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Maryland, to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations Defendants are without

regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous.

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore,
-3ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 4 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Allegations Regarding Jurisdiction and Venue 6. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding the amount in controversy, and, therefore, deny that the same. However, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 7. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Plaintiffs' citizenship, and, therefore, deny the same. However, Defendants admit that Plaintiffs claim that the parties are diverse. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 8. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding the judicial district in which the asserted claims allegedly arose, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny committing a tort in the States of California, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Maryland, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 9. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States, including the States of California, Ohio, South Carolina, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Maryland, to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants admit that they do business in the State of Texas. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and,
-4ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 5 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Allegations Regarding Interdistrict Assignment 10. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendants admit that this case should be transferred to In re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Prac. and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL-1699, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 6, 2005. Response to Factual Allegations 11. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 12. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 13. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 14. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this
-5ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 6 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

paragraph of the Complaint. 15. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 16. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 17. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 18. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 19. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's citizenship, medical condition, and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 20. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the
-6ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 7 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 21. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 22. Defendants admit that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers without substantial

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

change from the time of sale. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations this paragraph of the Complaint. 23. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny remaining the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 24. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the
-7ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 8 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 25. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 26. Defendants admit that Bextra® is in a class of drugs that is, at times, referred to as non-

steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ("NSAIDS"). Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 27. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and, therefore, no response is required.

Defendants state that Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 28. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants To the extent a response is deemed required,

and, therefore, no response is required.

Defendants state that Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 29. Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the

Complaint. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth
-8ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 9 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 30. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are

vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 31. Plaintiffs do not allege having used Celebrex® in this Complaint. Nevertheless,

Defendants admit that Celebrex® was launched in the United States in February 1999. Defendants state that Celebrex® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Celebrex® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time,

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Celebrex® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, copromoted and distributed Celebrex® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Merck and Vioxx® are not directed toward Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants state that Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Merck and Vioxx®. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 32. Defendants admit that the New Drug Application for Bextra® was filed with the FDA

on January 15, 2001. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
-9ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 10 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 33. Defendants admit that Bextra® was approved by the FDA on November 16, 2001.

Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 34. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra®

is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 35. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra®

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 36. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and copromoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be
-10ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 11 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding

"predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 37. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 38. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 39. Defendants admit that the New Drug Application for Bextra® was filed with the FDA

on January 15, 2001. Defendants admit that Bextra® was approved by the FDA, on November 16, 2001. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and the remaining allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. 40. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 41. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the allegations in this

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. paragraph of the Complaint.

-11ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 12 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

42.

Defendants state that the referenced FDA Talk Paper for Bextra® speaks for itself and

respectfully refer the Court to the Talk Paper for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Talk Paper is denied. paragraph of the Complaint. 43. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 44. Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations concerning the "post-drug

approval meta-analysis study" in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants are without sufficient information to confirm or deny such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that the referenced study speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the study for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the study is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 45. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 46. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 47. Defendants state that the referenced Alert for Healthcare Professionals speaks for itself

and respectfully refer the Court to the Alert for Healthcare Professionals for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Alert for Healthcare Professionals is denied.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 48. Defendants state that the referenced Alert for Healthcare Professionals speaks for itself

and respectfully refer the Court to the Alert for Healthcare Professionals for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Alert for Healthcare Professionals is denied.
-12ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 13 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 49. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 50. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 51. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 52. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 53. Defendants state that the referenced articles speak for themselves and respectfully refer

the Court to the articles for their actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the articles is denied. Complaint. 54. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 55. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the allegations in this

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. paragraph of the Complaint. 56.

Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 57. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants
-13ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 14 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 58. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 59. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 60. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 61. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and
-14ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 15 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 62. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Vioxx® are not directed

toward Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants state that Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Vioxx®. Defendants therefore lack sufficient

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 63. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 64. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with
-15ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 16 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 65.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 66. Defendants admit that the FDA Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and

Communications ("DDMAC") sent a letter to Pfizer dated January 10, 2005. Defendants state that the referenced letter speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the letter for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the letter is denied. Defendants admit that the DDMAC sent a letter to Searle dated October 6, 1999. Defendants state that the referenced letter speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the letter for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the letter is denied. Defendants state that the transcripts of the FDA Arthritis Drugs Advisory Committee hearings speak for themselves and respectfully refer the Court to the transcripts for their actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the transcripts is denied. Defendants state that the referenced study speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. paragraph of the Complaint. 67. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that the referenced press release speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the press release for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the press release is denied. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied.
-16ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 17 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 68. Defendants state that the referenced press release speaks for itself and respectfully refer

the Court to the press release for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the press release is denied. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining

allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 69. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 70. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants state that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
-17ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 18 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

71.

Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 72. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 73. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 74. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of
-18ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 19 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

the Complaint. 75. 76. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 77. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding and whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that the referenced press releases speak for themselves and respectfully refer the Court to the press releases for their actual language and text. Any attempt to

characterize the press releases is denied. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 78. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding and whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of
-19ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 20 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 79. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 80. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 81. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. 82. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and copromoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance
-20ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 21 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

with their approval by the FDA.

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the

remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 83. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to First Cause of Action: Negligence 84. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiffs'

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 85. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 86. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 87. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to
-21ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 22 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 88. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 89. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 90. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 91. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of
-22ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 23 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 92. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Vioxx® are not directed

toward Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants state that Plaintiffs fail to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Vioxx®. Defendants therefore lack sufficient

information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 93. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 94. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 95. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or

damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 96. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Second Cause of Action: Strict Liability 97. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiffs'

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 98. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers without substantial change in the condition from the time of sale. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe
-23ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 24 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or

unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 99. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 100. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 101. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 102. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same.

Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its
-24ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 25 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 103. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 104. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 105. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 106. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law.
-25ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-5704-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-05704-CRB

Document 3

Filed 03/26/2008

Page 26 of 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiffs injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 107. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 108. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiffs used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and copromoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain perio