a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner.” Elsroth v. Johnson & Johnson, 700 F.Supp. 151, 161 (S.D.N.Y.1988). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the packaging, as designed, “was not reasonably safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner.” Id. at 162 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff cannot establish that it was feasible for Amgen to design the Epo-gen in a safer manner. Even if Amgen was aware of the diversion and counterfeiting of prescription drugs, and that its packaging could be violated by a counterfeiter, no packaging is completely tamper-proof. See, e.g. Elsroth, 700 F.Supp. at 161 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, even, if plaintiff were
recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous holding that it is not recognizing the necessity of permanency for juveniles at the earliest possible age recognizing that tamperproof packaging of overthecounter drugs is not possible holding that trial courts stay was an abuse of discretion because pending actions may take years to complete and because proceedings on liability could not be justifiably stayed merely because a precise determination of damages is not possible at this moment  