Federal Judge Denies Abbott Discovery Reopening Based on Unrelated False Claims Act Case, Orders Limited FDA Document Production

LitNews.ai Staff · April 22, 2026 · S.D. Tex.

A federal magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' request to reopen discovery in a product liability case alleging their child was injured by contaminated Abbott formula, while ordering the manufacturer to produce one specific FDA inspection response.

Plaintiffs Judy Nicole Jacobs and others allege that their infant child consumed formula manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Abbott Nutrition in September 2020 that was contaminated with the bacterium Cronobacter sakazakii, resulting in severe and debilitating injuries.

Abbott's motion for summary judgment is ripe, but the court first addressed four motions filed by plaintiffs after Abbott's briefing was complete. These included a motion for sanctions, a motion to stay summary judgment and reopen discovery, a motion for leave to file a second supplement, and a motion for leave to file a revised declaration.

Plaintiffs sought sanctions because they believed Abbott violated earlier discovery orders by failing to produce written responses to FDA Establishment Inspection Reports (EIRs) for 2018, 2019, and 2022, as well as EIR Exhibits and Attachments for 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022.

The court denied the sanctions motion because plaintiffs failed to follow local rules requiring a joint letter outlining the dispute before filing a motion to compel.

However, the court ordered Abbott to produce its written response to the FDA's 2022 EIR by May 5, 2026. A footnote noted that Abbott's Director of Quality Assurance declared the company does not possess the exhibits or attachments referenced in the body of the EIRs, and Abbott did not provide written responses to the 2018 and 2019 EIRs.

Because the court ordered limited post-discovery production, it granted plaintiffs' request to stay summary judgment consideration and allowed them until May 19, 2026, to file a supplemental summary judgment response of no more than five pages. Abbott will have until June 2, 2026, to file a reply of the same length.

The court denied plaintiffs' request to reopen discovery for six months, which they sought based on the recent unsealing of a federal False Claims Act lawsuit against Abbott in the Western District of Michigan.

The judge found plaintiffs failed to explain why they did not move sooner after the lawsuit was publicized in December 2025. The court also noted that none of the relators in the unsealed case worked at the facility that manufactured the formula at issue.

The court stated plaintiffs did not offer a straightforward explanation of how the requested discovery would be useful in resolving the summary judgment motion, nor did they identify any evidence cited in the unsealed lawsuit that Abbott should have produced earlier.

The court emphasized that the case is three years old, discovery has been closed for nearly seven months, and Abbott's motion is fully briefed. The May 8, 2026 docket call was cancelled.

Counsel

Plaintiffs are represented by Barry Cecil Bennett, Bennett Legal PC, of Beaumont, TX and Casey Hugh Hargroder, Hargroder Law Firm, PLLC, of Beaumont, TX. Defendant Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is represented by Holly Renee Rioux-Lefebvre, Katherine R. Katz, Michael Glick, Saunders Lee McElroy, and Brad Masters, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Washington, DC and Salt Lake City, UT, and Robert Edward Booth, Mills Shirley LLP, of Galveston, TX. Defendants H-E-B, LP and HEBCO GP, LLC are represented by Julie A. Hardin, Keely Dulaney Pippin, and Kip Edward Patterson, Reed Smith LLP or individually of Houston, TX, and Victoria Nikki Lui, Baker & Patterson LLP, of Houston, TX.

Case

The case is JUDY NICOLE JACOBS, et al., Plaintiffs. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants., in the S.D. Tex..

Court

S.D. Tex.

Case Name

JUDY NICOLE JACOBS, et al., Plaintiffs. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

View Source Document ↗