As we reported in May, Judge Swain precluded the trial testimony of the plaintiffs’ loss causation and damages expert in a shareholder class action accusing Pfizer of concealing the cardiovascular risks of two drugs, Celebrex and Bextra.  At the time we wrote:  “Without a damages expert, it is unclear how the plaintiffs can prove their case at trial, which is currently scheduled for September.” The answer, based on an Order yesterday, is that the plaintiffs will not be able to prove their case.  Judge Swain dismissed the case altogether, writing:  “To prevail on a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Plaintiffs must prove loss causation and damages. See, e.g., Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148, 157 (2007); 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(4). Without a loss causation expert, Plaintiffs cannot prove either.” She rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to update the expert’s report to fix the issued she identified earlier:

Plaintiffs essentially seek a further bite at the apple, after discovery, summary judgment motion practice and a decision by this Court, after full briefing of the motion in limine, rejecting Plaintiffs’ proffered and supplemental expert evidence. Their motion comes on the eve of the trial in this complex case, which is scheduled to commence on September 9, 2014. It is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration of the in limine decision. It identifies no factual information or precedents previously presented to and overlooked by the Court, nor does it purport to be based on newly discovered evidence. Rather, it purports to offer additional contextual and explanatory information that the expert had thought unnecessary to disclose during the initial and supplemental rounds of expert disclosures and depositions. … The Court has examined closely the proposed supplemental report. Even if the proposed supplemental disclosure were sufficient to meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert – a proposition as to which the Court is not persuaded – there is no justification for the untimely disclosure of the additional explanations and contextual information. Considerations of judicial economy warrant preclusion of the Proposed Amended Supplemental Expert Report, as do concerns regarding the prejudicial effects on Defendants were the Court to admit into evidence the new report.