This motion was filed in the Louisiana Reglan lawsuit of Tarver v. Wyeth. The motion asks the court not to allow Dr. Daniel Sewell to testify about the association between Reglan and movement disorders like tardive dyskinesia.
On behalf of Wyeth, Mr. Reilly contacted Dr. Sewell in early 1999 to ask him about
his paper on Tardive Dyskinesia and to investigate his willingness to consult with
Wyeth on the Woodworth matter. Dr. Sewell informed Mr. Reilly that he was not
working with plaintiff's counsel in Woodworth and that he did not have any
conflicts that would prohibit him from working for Wyeth. Mr. Reilly eventually
scheduled an in-person meeting with Dr. Sewell. At their meeting, which took place
on or about April 27, 1999, Mr. Reilly and other counsel for Wyeth met with Dr.
Sewell for three-and-a-half hours. Dr. Sewell spent another hour-and-a-half
reviewing medical records and a videotape related to the plaintiff in Woodworth.
During this lengthy meeting, counsel for Wyeth shared confidential information
regarding the Woodworth case, including their thoughts on the merits of
plaintiff's claims and the adequacy of the Reglan(R) label. In the course of that
meeting, Dr. Sewell provided his assessment of plaintiff's condition; his thoughts
about the use of Reglan(R) for gastrointestinal disorders; his opinions about the
adequacy of the Reglan(R) label, especially in light of his paper on the use of
Reglan(R) in the VA center; and general defense strategies. It is important to
emphasize that the plaintiff in Woodworth was represented by the same attorney in
this case -- Mr. Ralph Pittle. Indeed, plaintiffs theories of liability in the
instant case are similar if not identical to those pursued in Woodworth by Mr.
Pittle.
From this point forward, Mr. Reilly and Wyeth reasonably believed that Wyeth had
established a confidential relationship with their new consultant, Dr. Sewell. In
fact, following this meeting, Dr. Sewell sent Mr. Reilly "an invoice for my
consultation with you and Stuart Gordon in San Diego." This invoice clearly
demonstrated that, from Dr. Sewell's perspective, a consultation had occurred. See
Affidavit of James R. Reilly in Support of Wyeth's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs'
Expert Daniel Sewell at "Exhibit A." This confidential relationship was further
confirmed by Mr. Reilly's payment to Dr. Sewell for his services.