GORDON KEENE VELLA. - On Point News

Significantly, the court so held even though the plaintiff had ample opportunity at trial to
cross-examine the doctor concerning the certification and did not do so. Id. Also of
significance, the court did not require or seek to find evidence of actual prejudice to the plaintiff.
Nor did the court seek to determine whether the outcome would have been different but for the
misrepresentation. It was enough to conclude that his testimony was central to the case and that
it falsely represented evidence relevant to the admissibility and credibility of that testimony.
As will become apparent from the evidence offered in support of the instant motion, the
“misstatement” in Vioxx pales in significance to the varied and numerous misrepresentations and
material omissions that were advanced by Dr. Brown in the trial before this Court last April. The
Defendant has provided compelling evidence of Dr. Brown’s misrepresentations.
In the alternative, relief may be granted in this case under Rule 60(b)(6). Even if the
Court does not conclude that the testimony in this case satisfied the requirements of subsection
(b)(3), the Defendant has shown “exceptional circumstances that have denied [him] a full and
fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented [him] from receiving adequate redress.”
Harley v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 413 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2005). Under this portion of the
Rule, the Court has discretion to enter such relief for “any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Indeed, Rule 60(b)(6) provides a grand
reservoir of equitable power to afford justice where relief is not warranted by the preceding
causes. As noted by the Fifth Circuit, the “broad language of clause (6) gives the court ample
power to vacate judgment whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” Harrell v.
DCS Equip. Leasing Corp., 951 F.2d 1453, 1458 (5th Cir. 1992).
- 7 -