The court found that Dr. Goldberg lacked a sufficient factual basis for his opinion that NDMA in ranitidine was a substantial contributing factor in causing the plaintiffs’ colon cancers. The court noted that he did not know how much NDMA was in the plaintiffs’ ranitidine, did not calculate their NDMA exposure and lacked “sound logic” supporting his conclusion that the unknown exposure caused a non-trivial increase in cancer risk. 

The court separately excluded Dr. Bird’s specific-causation opinions, finding that his analysis selectively relied on certain testing data and did not use a reliable methodology. In the Flees analysis, Judge S. Raj Chatterjee characterized Dr. Bird’s selection of testing as a “classic arbitrary ‘cherry picking’ exercise” and ultimately found that his opinions were not based on data reasonably relied upon by an expert or on “sound logic.” The court reached the same conclusion as to Dr. Bird’s opinion regarding McLeod, finding that it was not based on the required level of intellectual rigor and that there was “simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Because all of plaintiffs’ specific-causation testimony was excluded, the court found it unnecessary to reach Dr. Bird’s general-causation opinion. 

Eva Canaan and Luke Bosso took the expert depositions and argued the motions to exclude the experts, while Bobby Woo, Spencer Sabey and Carolyn Weltman led the efforts on briefing the motions.