transferee court’s holding and stipulates that she will not call Gueriguian to testify regarding the prescribing practices of physicians, Bloor’s study, or Wyeth’s corporate intent. See Response on Generic Experts at 6. Burton asserts that she intends to call Gueriguian to testify not about these previously excluded matters but “about how information should be communicated to the FDA, what information should be reflected on labels as mandated by applicable regulations, and what reasonable FDA officials would do with adverse event information.” Response on Generic Experts at 6. Upon review of PTO 1685, it appears that the transferee court has already addressed the admissibility of the evidence that the plaintiff intends to proffer through Gueriguian. See PTO 1685, 2001 WL 454586, at *18 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, his testimony shall be limited
holding gueriguians testimony to be admissible to the extent that dr gueriguian opines about how information should be communicated to the fda and what information should be reflected in labels as mandated by applicable regulations he is undoubtedly qualified to do so in light of his experience as an fda officer and as to what a reasonable official in the position of dr lutwak would have done holding that in deciding whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity it is not only the evidence of clearly established law that is for the court but also whether a reasonable officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful in light of the information the officer had holding that probation orders need not include every possible restriction so long as a reasonable person is put on notice of what conduct will subject him or her to revocation and that ajlthough the conditions should be clearly set out and must mean what they say every detail need not be spelled out and the language should be interpreted in its common ordinary usage holding that defendants position as bank vice president which allowed him knowledge of the banking system and the operations of the bank as well as the ability to oversee commercial and real estate loans and to act as a compliance officer qualified as a position of trust holding that expert testimony as to what a business should know about its customers does not create a duty under the law or an issue of fact precluding summary judgment