Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of California - California

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 2 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 2 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 3 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 3 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 4 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 4 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 5 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 5 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 6 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 6 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 7 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 7 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 8 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 8 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 9 of 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page 9 of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 10 10 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 11 11 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 12 12 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 13 13 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 14 14 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 15 15 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 16 16 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 17 17 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 18 18 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 19 19 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 20 20 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 21 21 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 22 22 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 23 23 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 24 24 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 25 25 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 26 26 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 27 27 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 0:07-cv-04801-ADM-JSM Document 1 1 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 28 28 28 28 Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB Document Filed 12/10/2007 Page of of

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 1 of 41

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ______________________________________________________________________________ HARRIET BRATCHER, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, G.D. SEARLE LLC, and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants. Jury Trial Demanded ______________________________________________________________________________ NOW COME Defendants Pfizer Inc. (improperly captioned in Plaintiff' Complaint as s " Pfizer, Inc." (" ) Pfizer" Pharmacia Corporation (f/k/a Monsanto Company1) (" ), Pharmacia" and ) G.D. Searle LLC (" Searle" (collectively " ) Defendants" and file this Answer to Plaintiff' ) s Complaint (" Complaint" and would respectfully show the Court as follows: ), I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Complaint does not state in sufficient detail when Plaintiff was 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 Plaintiff was prescribed and used Bextra®. DEFENDANTS PFIZER INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, AND G.D. SEARLE LLC' ANSWER TO S PLAINTIFF' COMPLAINT S Case No.: 07-CV-4801 ADM-JSM

Plaintiff' Complaint names " s Monsanto Company"as a Defendant. Defendants state that in 1933, an entity known as Monsanto Company (" 1933 Monsanto" was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, 1933 ) Monsanto changed its name to Pharmacia Corporation. On February 9, 2000, a separate company, Monsanto Ag Company, was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, Monsanto Ag Company changed its name to Monsanto Company (" 2000 Monsanto" The 2000 Monsanto is engaged in the agricultural business and ). does not and has not ever designed, produced, manufactured, sold, resold, or distributed Bextra®. Given that Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Monsanto Company was involved in distributing Bextra®, see PLAINTIFF' S COMPLAINT at ¶ 7, Defendants assume Plaintiff means to refer to 1933 Monsanto. As a result, Pharmacia will respond to the allegations directed at Monsanto Company.

1

-1-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 2 of 41

II. ORIGINAL ANSWER Response to Allegations Regarding Parties 1. Defendants admit that Plaintiff brought this civil action seeking monetary damages, but

deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief or damages. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff' s medical condition and whether Plaintiff 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 deny any wrongful conduct, deny that

Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff' age and citizenship, and, therefore, deny the same. s Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 3. 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 Pfizer and Pharmacia do business in the State of Minnesota. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 4. Defendants admit that Pfizer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New York, and that it is registered to do business in the State of Minnesota. Defendants admit that Pfizer may be served through its registered agent. 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 Minnesota, 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 Plaintiff' allegations regarding s Defendants are therefore without

" predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous.

-2-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 3 of 41

knowledge or information sufficient 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. 5. Defendants admit that Searle is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

place of business in Illinois, and that it is registered to do business in the State of Minnesota. Defendants admit that Searle may be served through its registered agent. 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, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, copromoted 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. 6. Defendants admit that Pharmacia is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New Jersey. 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, 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 state that

Plaintiff' allegations regarding " s predecessors in interest"are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are therefore without knowledge or information sufficient 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. 7. Defendants admit that in 1933 an entity known as Monsanto Company (" 1933

Monsanto" was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, a subsidiary of ) 1933 Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc, and 1933 Monsanto changed its name to Pharmacia Corporation. On February 9, 2000, a separate company, Monsanto Ag Company, was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, Monsanto Ag Company changed -3-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 4 of 41

its name to Monsanto Company (" 2000 Monsanto" The 2000 Monsanto is engaged in the ). agricultural business and does not and has not ever manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed Bextra®. The 2000 Monsanto is not and has never been the parent of either Searle or Pharmacia. As the 2000 Monsanto does not and has not ever manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed Bextra®, Defendants therefore state that the 2000 Monsanto is not a proper party in this matter. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants state that the response to this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Monsanto is incorporated by reference into Defendants' responses to each and every paragraph of the Complaint referring to Monsanto and/or Defendants. 8. 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 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 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 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-4-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 5 of 41

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. 10. Defendants state that the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Defendants are therefore without

" predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous.

knowledge or information sufficient 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. 11. Defendants admit that Pfizer, Pharmacia, and Searle do business in the State of

Minnesota. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 12. Defendants admit that Pfizer, Pharmacia, and Searle do business in the State of

Minnesota. Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding the amount in controversy, and, therefore, deny the same. However, Defendants admit that Plaintiff claims the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional amount of this Court. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Factual Allegations 13. 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 Plaintiff' age, medical s condition, and whether Plaintiff 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 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 in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding whether Plaintiff 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 -5-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 6 of 41

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, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 15. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that, in the ordinary case, Bextra® was expected to reach users and consumers without substantial change from the time of sale. Defendants 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 in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding whether Plaintiff 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 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. 17. 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 the allegations in this ). paragraph of the Complaint regarding aspirin, naproxen and ibuprofen are not directed toward Defendants, and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed

required, Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding aspirin, naproxen and ibuprofen. Defendants

therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient 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. -6-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 7 of 41

18.

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 Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. 19. 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 Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. 20. 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 Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. 21. 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 Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. 22. Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the

Complaint. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. 23. Defendants state that Plaintiff' allegations regarding " s predecessors in interest" are

vague and ambiguous. Defendants are therefore 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. -7-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 8 of 41

24.

Plaintiff does 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,

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 Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Merck and Vioxx®. Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient 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. 25. 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 Plaintiff' allegations regarding " s predecessors in interest"are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are therefore 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. 26. 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 -8-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 9 of 41

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. 27. 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. 28. 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 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. 29. 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 Plaintiff' allegations s Defendants are therefore

regarding " predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous.

without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, 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 -9-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 10 of 41

information, which at all times was 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. 30. 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. 31. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants,

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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

-10-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 11 of 41

35.

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. 36. Plaintiff fails 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. 37. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants,

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. 38. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants,

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants admit that a Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was held on February 16-18, 2005. Defendants state that the referenced testimony speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the testimony for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the testimony is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 39. 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 any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. -11-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 12 of 41

40.

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. 41. 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. 42. 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. 43.

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. 44. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants,

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. 45. 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. 46. 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 -12-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 13 of 41

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. 47. 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. 48. 49. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. 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 FDAapproved 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 allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 50. 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 -13-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 14 of 41

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. 51. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

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 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 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. 52. 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 -14-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 15 of 41

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 Plaintiff' allegations regarding " s predecessors in interest"are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are therefore 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. 53. 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. 54. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

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. 55. 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, -15-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 16 of 41

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. 56. 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. 57. 58. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants admit that the sale of Bextra® was voluntarily suspended in the U.S. market

as of April 7, 2005. 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 contained 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

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.

-16-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 17 of 41

61.

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. 62. 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 and whether Plaintiff 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 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. 63. 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 and whether Plaintiff 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 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. 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 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 -17-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 18 of 41

primary dysmenorrhea.

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining

allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 65. 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 and whether Plaintiff 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 FDAapproved 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 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 state that Plaintiff' allegations regarding " s predecessors in interest"are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are therefore 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, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to First Cause of Action: Negligence 67. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff' s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 68. 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 -18-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 19 of 41

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 remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 69. 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 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 remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 70. 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. 71. 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 whether Plaintiff 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 FDAapproved 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. -19-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 20 of 41

72.

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. 73. 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 whether Plaintiff 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 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. 74. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 75. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Answering the unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Second Cause of Action: Strict Liability 76. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff' s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 77. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, -20-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 21 of 41

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 admit that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers without substantial change in the condition from the time of sale. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 78. 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. 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 or unreasonably dangerous, 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

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, including all subparts.

-21-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 22 of 41

81.

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 whether Plaintiff 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 FDAapproved 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, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, 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 deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 83. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. 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 FDAapproved 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 -22-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 23 of 41

times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 84. 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. 85. 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 whether Plaintiff 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 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. 86. 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. 87. 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.

-23-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 24 of 41

88.

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 89. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 90. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Third Cause of Action: Breach of Express Warranty 91. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff' s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 92. 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 whether Plaintiff 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 FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 93. 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 whether Plaintiff 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 FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. -24-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 25 of 41

94. 95.

Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 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 remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 96. 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 the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 97. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 98. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 99. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 100. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty 101. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff' s

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

-25-

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 26 of 41

102.

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. 103. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding

Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 104. 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. 105. 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. 106. 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 whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. 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. 107. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required, -26-

which no response is deemed required.

Case 3:08-cv-00795-CRB

Document 1-2

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 27 of 41

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 whether Plaintiff 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 they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants 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 in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra®, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers w