As reported in Law 360, a New Jersey trial judge struck the entire defense closing argument in a mesolthelioma case against Johnson & Johnson, after the defense lawyer referred to the plaintiffs' claims as "lawsuit fiction."
Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Anna C. Visomi struck the closing argument of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP's Diane Sullivan, who repeatedly suggested during her summation that attorneys for the four plaintiffs "created" evidence to back their claims that they developed terminal cancer from using the company's talcum powder.
According to the article, Sullivan had been repeatedly warned about her argument. To leave "only the appropriate comments on the record would be impossible," said the court.
When Sullivan objected to the "Draconian and unfair" measure, the judge told her to "stop the outbursts."
The article does not explain the practical impact for the case, which has been on trial since July 15. The jury was presumably told to disregard the defense argument, but how much difference can that make once that they've already heard it? We also don't know whether the rebuke to defense counsel was in front of the jury, or what other admonitions the court gave the jurors.
Somewhat ironically, the defense later objected to when plaintiffs' counsel referred to the defense argument, on the ground that it had been stricken.
The Law 360 article is here. It is behind a paywall, but I believe you can sign up for free access.