In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation

Summary

The Court reversed the Superior Court’s denial of defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiffs’ general-causation experts in the Zantac litigation. It held that Delaware’s expert-evidence standard does not presume admissibility and requires the proponent to establish sufficiency and reliability by a preponderance of the evidence, with the trial judge performing a genuine gatekeeping function. It also held that general-causation opinions must address ranitidine itself and reliably connect studies concerning NDMA to the exposure allegedly caused by ranitidine; the Court expressly did not decide whether Delaware law requires proof of a threshold dose.