Judge Upset by Acrimony in Case Rules It a Mistrial

A senior federal judge in Los Angeles has declared a mistrial in a major product liability case against G.D. Searle & Co., asserting that the acrimonious proceedings were keeping him awake nights and threatening to give him ulcers.

U.S. District Judge Irving Hill on Tuesday dismissed the jury after more than two weeks of trial, claiming that the lawyers’ repeated objections and other delaying tactics promised to delay the proceedings past his scheduled vacation and affect the judge’s own “health and peace of mind.”

“I know myself. If this case continues as it has been, I know my health would likely worsen and crack,” said Hill, admitting that the mistrial declaration was “unprecedented” in his 27 years on the bench.

“This trial is World War III. No other description does it justice,” the judge said.

Lawyers for the plaintiff, a Butte, Mont., woman who claims Searle’s CU-7 contraceptive intrauterine device left her sterile, were outraged by the judge’s action and predicted that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-try the case.

“I’ve never heard of it. I’ve never seen it happen. I’d characterize it as a denial of fundamental due process to the plaintiff,” said Michael Ciresi, attorney for plaintiff Laura F. McCarthy.

Lawyers Comment

Lawyers for Searle were more circumspect, calling Hill “one of the most respected judges on the bench.”

“My perspective in the case varied from that of Judge Hill in some respects, but . . . I think the judge’s commentary speaks for itself,” said Winchester Cooley III, lawyer for the pharmaceutical company.

The case has been a high-stakes one for both sides, with Searle facing nearly 500 suits throughout the country claiming that it was negligent in testing and marketing the CU-7.

Though more than 300 suits have been disposed of in the company’s favor, the company suffered a stinging defeat last year when a federal jury awarded a Minnesota woman $8.75 million in damages.

“Both sides recognize that the outcome of this case may well determine settlement posture on both sides for the hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of cases that are waiting in the background,” the judge suggested. “So the stakes are high, and I understand it. But high stakes are not a justification for the way this case has been tried.”

Hill, 73, is one of 10 senior judges on the Los Angeles bench who continue to hear cases but under a significantly reduced workload.

Hill blamed both sides for significantly underestimating the amount of time that the trial would take, causing conflicts with his scheduled service in March on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Guam.

While the lawyers had initially said the trial would take six to eight weeks, Hill said, it soon became clear--with more than 80 witnesses and 6,700 exhibits planned and testimony from only three witnesses by the second week--that the case could actually take 16 weeks or longer.

The judge cited his prior commitment to serve with the appeals court in March and a previously planned vacation in Guam, both of which would cause a delay that he said would make continuing the trial later impractical.

Disputed Account

Ciresi disputed Hill’s account, saying the judge had already delayed start of the trial by two weeks and complaining that Hill had ignored the plaintiff’s offer to shorten the total trial time to 30 days.

McCarthy, he said, “broke down” after the mistrial was declared.

“She’s waited over three years to get to trial, and she just started crying,” he said.

Hill was sharply critical of lawyers on both sides for extending the proceedings with lengthy pretrial motions, objections during trial and what he characterized generally as a “dog-in-the-manger, no-holds-barred, no-compromise attitude” on the part of both parties.

Hill said he was “near exhaustion” when the trial finally commenced Jan. 3 after two years of pretrial proceedings, over much of which he presided. But the acrimony continued, he said.

“The lawyers on the two sides obviously despise each other. They act as if they were in a struggle to the death,” the judge said.

‘Peace of Mind’

“I am a senior judge. I am nearing my 74th birthday. It is not expected in this system that a senior judge should handle litigation which may prejudice his health and peace of mind. By definition, a senior judge has already paid his dues,” he said.

“I have given this case and you the best that is in me to give, and apparently, that is not enough to meet your expectations and your demands. . . . If this case continues as it has been, I know my health would likely worsen and crack.”

After the mistrial declaration, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who will hear it as soon as her schedule permits.

But Ciresi said the delay will end up costing both sides “hundreds of thousands of dollars” nonetheless.

“It is just horrendously expensive to try these lawsuits, and individual plaintiffs can’t afford to do that,” he said. “You can’t continue to do this if courts are going to declare mistrials in the middle because they have other plans.”