AAC Opioid litigation ramps up
sprinkling of war stories, about this unprecedented case. Our goal is unchanging: a comprehensive remedy to the Arkansas Opioid Epidemic, funded by those responsible for unleashing this epi- demic on our people. We remain pleased to report that the law- suit — your lawsuit — is still on file with the Crittenden County Circuit Court, before 2nd Judicial District Circuit Judge Pamela Honeycutt, on the path to a trial before an Arkansas jury. I last updated you in the Summer 2018 issue of County Lines
G
(more on this below). I told you that on Aug. 30, 2018, we — the lawyers representing the Arkansas governments in your case against the opioid industry — filed a unified response to all of the defendants’ many motions to dismiss, and be- gan to pursue the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) “ARCOS” database, which tracks opioid sales nationwide throughout the supply chain.
As expected, the defendants filed many reply briefs in sup-
port of their dismissal motions in early October 2018. On Oct. 12, we served written discovery on the defendants. We asked the defendants to provide sworn answers to written questions and disclose documentation and information rel- evant to the opioid epidemic in Arkansas and the defendants’ role in the epidemic. Written discovery is a standard part of civil litigation, and we made no secret about the fact we intend to litigate this case. Te defendants and their legions of law firms responded by filing numerous motions requesting a stay of discovery and various other relief from the discovery, rather than respond to the discovery as defendants usually do. At a hearing on Oct. 31, 2018, Judge Honeycutt appropriately and cautiously granted a temporary stay of discovery but did not rule on the defendants’ motions to stay the case. Our hands were tied, temporarily. With suboptimal news to
report when it came time for the next seasonal issue of County Lines, I cashed in my one-and-only get-out-of-jail-free card with the editor, which is why you haven’t heard from me in six months. Troughout November, December, and January 2019, the defendants filed scores of “cross-notices” regarding deposi- tions taking place all over the country through the national Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) case lodged in Ohio. Te de- fendants’ attorneys attempted to force us (your lawyers) to at- tend these depositions without access to documentation and information necessary to prepare for the depositions. We filed a motion to “quash” the many cross-notices of deposition, and asked to be heard on that motion and our objections to a stay
COUNTY LINES, WINTER 2019
reetings from the trenches of the united lawsuit filed by Arkansas counties, cities, and the state, against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and other opioid defendants. Tis is an update, with a
of discovery at the hearing sched- uled for Jan. 29, 2019. Tis time, on Jan. 29, we had the whole day scheduled with Judge Honeycutt. Everyone took advan- tage — I’ve never seen so much ground covered in a single day of court between a single judge and lawyers (admittedly, a very large number of lawyers). Counsel pre- sented about five hours of oral ar- gument to Judge Honeycutt, and we were able to fully argue many (but not all) of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Judge Honeycutt took almost all of those arguments under ad- visement, which means she will issue a written ruling later. We remain confident that the plaintiff counties, cities, and state will be permitted to pursue their claims against opioid manu- facturers, distributors, and others, for violating Arkansas law. We look forward to Judge Honeycutt’s rulings on these issues that we have written and argued about extensively in the case. On Jan. 29, Judge Honeycutt also ruled from the bench re-
Colin Jorgensen Risk Management Litigation Counsel
garding several issues and motions apart from issues raised in the defendants’ motions to dismiss. First, Judge Honeycutt announced she will quash the de- fendants’ cross-notices of depositions as we requested on behalf of the plaintiffs. Judge Honeycutt explained that al- though it might make sense to coordinate discovery with other cases, the temporary stay of discovery “did strap the Plaintiffs from being able to get information that they need- ed before those depositions.” Terefore, she quashed the cross-notices of deposition. Second, Judge Honeycutt announced she will lift the stay of discovery, as we also requested on behalf of the plaintiffs. She will lift the stay that she put in place on Halloween, and she will deny the defendants’ motions for a longer (or in- definite) stay of discovery. Te defendants will be required to respond to the written discovery served on them in October. Judge Honeycutt explained the effect of this best at the hear- ing when she said she is lifting the stay of discovery “so that the case can start moving.” Tird, Judge Honeycutt revisited an issue we raised on be- half of the plaintiffs at the outset: the fair application of litiga- tion privileges — the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege — for all parties to the case, including the government plaintiffs. Without a protective order, because
See “OPIOIDS” on Page 24 >>> 23
LITIGATION LESSONS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
