Honestly, Senti, by ignoring the conclusive decision of a federal judge as of March 2017, and saying I’m wrong without reading carefully what I said and wrongly endorsing Avii’s view that the efficacy review occurred, which is inconsistent with an official finding of fact by a court that was never challenged by plaintiff’s though it was directly relevant to their case and highly material to the dismissal of their case, and your confusing endorsement of his view... just muddies the matter on bulletin boards.
It’s incorrect to say it happened just during the court’s review but plaintiffs never updated. They filed an amended complaint. And further, there was nothing, absolutely nothing that would have stopped then from amending again or coming again.
Rules of evidence do. It apply to bulletin boards. It allows posters like Avii, and others to confuse the record and muddy the waters on things for which they have no actual knowledge and are typically, potentially unverifiable. In this instance, we have a very good record of what was established as of March 31st, 2017, and what could have easily been updated. Plaintiff had 5-6 lawyers, two very competent law firms and their lawyers had a duty to their clients to address that issue at that time.
It’s bogus to claim at Tia late date that the same allegations made in 2014, and addressed by the company, and then there’s a material court finding directly on point in 2017, were just not really the factual record, because slide x in some random presentation a few years previous to the court ruling suggests that they might yet do otherwise.
Evidence was taken. Plaintiff’s and defendants pled their cases.... and that ruling happened in 2017. There is absolutely no reason, if this were a real claim, that the record would not have been updated long prior to March 2017.
To throw out unknowable a and attack a company by creating ambiguous unknowable bad things is standard procedure in some places... but it doesn’t work in this instance.
