Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The plaintiff, the executrix of the estate of the decedent, M, sought to recover damages from the defendants, alleging that a certain brand- name anticoagulant medication they had designed, manufactured or sold wrongfully caused M's death. The defendants had received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration to market the medication, and, for some time, M took the medication without signifi- cant side effects. Several years later, M suffered a gastrointestinal bleed and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negli- gently failed to give adequate warnings, directions, and instructions to guard against the risk of bleeding caused by the medication and to investigate the benefits of establishing a therapeutic range for its admin- istration. The plaintiff also alleged that the medication was defectively designed due to the absence of a reversal agent. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim relating to the absence of a reversal agent, concluding, inter alia, that it was pre- empted by federal law. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a request to charge, asking the court to instruct the jury that the defendants had improperly failed to maintain certain materials for the purpose of discovery, specifi- cally, that they had lost or destroyed files of a former employee, L, while litigating prior federal actions relating to the medication, and that the jury could draw an adverse inference from the loss or destruction of such materials. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a spoliation instruction. The trial court also granted in part the defendants' motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence, testimony, or argument regarding their failure to test reagrading a certain dose of the medication on the ground that a failure to test claim was preempted by federal law. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding that, although the defendants negligently failed to give adequate war

The plaintiff, the executrix of the estate of the decedent, M, sought to recover damages from the defendants, alleging that a certain brand- name anticoagulant medication they had designed, manufactured or sold wrongfully caused M's death. The defendants had received approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration to market the medication, and, for some time, M took the medication without signifi- cant side effects. Several years later, M suffered a gastrointestinal bleed and subsequently died. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negli- gently failed to give adequate warnings, directions, and instructions to guard against the risk of bleeding caused by the medication and to investigate the benefits of establishing a therapeutic range for its admin- istration. The plaintiff also alleged that the medication was defectively designed due to the absence of a reversal agent. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claim relating to the absence of a reversal agent, concluding, inter alia, that it was pre- empted by federal law. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a request to charge, asking the court to instruct the jury that the defendants had improperly failed to maintain certain materials for the purpose of discovery, specifi- cally, that they had lost or destroyed files of a former employee, L, while litigating prior federal actions relating to the medication, and that the jury could draw an adverse inference from the loss or destruction of such materials. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a spoliation instruction. The trial court also granted in part the defendants' motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence, testimony, or argument regarding their failure to test reagrading a certain dose of the medication on the ground that a failure to test claim was preempted by federal law. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, finding that, although the defendants negligently failed to give adequate war