also depend upon voluntary reporting by physicians and other health care professionals. See Protecting the Identities of Reporters of Adverse Events and Patients, 59 Fed.Reg. at 3945. Yet courts have allowed discovery of such reports. See, e.g., In Re Eli Lilly & Co., 142 F.R.D. at 461 (allowing discovery of adverse reaction reports in redacted form); Harris v. Upjohn Co., 115 F.R.D. 191, 1921-93 (S.D.Ill. 1987) (allowing discovery of adverse reaction reports and drug experience reports in redacted form); Waelde v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, 94 F.R.D. 27, 28-30 (E.D.Mich.1981) (denying protective order of New Drug Application file, information related to post-marketing adverse events, pre-marketing studies, and animal tests); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 850 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). Defendants have presented no case law that
holding that when a plaintiff can establish that she was in the vicinity in which asbestos dust from defendants products was inhaled a jury can reasonably infer that plaintiff was injured by defendants products recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim holding that a products liability plaintiff was entitled to discovery of redacted adverse reaction reports recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability