Objections predominate in opioid trial of 4 pharmaceutical companies

The goal of a 20-year-old pharmaceutical marketing campaign was to increase prescriptions and drive sales of opioids, a marketing executive testified in a deposition tape played Monday in California's $50 billion bench trial of four drugmakers accused of deceptive marketing.

In the third week of the state's case, Rhode Island attorney Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of Motely Rice LLC played the 2019 testimony of Nathalie Leitch, a senior marketing executive from Actavis Pharma Inc., the maker of the drugs Kadian and Norco. In the tape, Leitch confirmed marketing materials she helped distribute to doctors in California and elsewhere were meant to "increase scripts and drive business towards Actavis."

The remote trial, viewed by hundreds of people daily, will likely affect thousands of settlements in lawsuits filed nationwide by states and municipalities that claim Purdue Pharma and other opioid producers helped create an opioid crisis by marketing the drugs as safe and effective pain treatments while downplaying the risk of addiction.

Before the trial began last month, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Wilson stayed claims against Purdue pending a bankruptcy case in New York. Last week, law firms representing Purdue and its founders, the Sackler family in New York, agreed to relinquish $1 million in attorney fees as part of a settlement with the U.S. trustee program, according to a statement released by the Department of Justice.

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Dechert LLP agreed to relinquish fees after they failed to adequately disclose a Joint Defense and Common Interest Agreement between Purdue and the Sacklers. According to the U.S. trustee, Purdue invoked the agreement in an attempt to avoid turning over documents to a committee of creditors as it conducted its review of the debtors' conduct, the DOJ statement said. The agreement allegedly created obligations for the firms to the Sacklers relating to the defense against hundreds of lawsuits involving potentially billions of dollars of liability related to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of OxyContin, the DOJ said.

Attorneys for the other drug companies facing deceptive marketing allegations in California have worked to distance themselves from Purdue. They have repeatedly stressed the need for plaintiffs' attorneys to clearly identify each individual drug company in allegations and questions asked of witnesses.

Proceedings came to a halt Monday after a constant stream of objections by the drug companies' four legal teams. The result was a debate about whether Fitzpatrick meant to say "Actavis" or "Actavis no comma Inc.," which are two separate Actavis subsidiaries.

"Actavis Inc. marketed opioids in California?" Fitzpatrick asked a medical marketing expert before objections were raised for vagueness. "Your honor, if I may, this is not even in dispute," Fitzpatrick pleaded.

Later, the judge said the word "Actavis" should henceforth replace the words "Actavis no comma Inc." for trial purposes. Wilson then appeared frustrated after a defense attorney stopped proceedings to seek clarification.

"Was I unclear in some respect and if so, what was I unclear about?" Wilson asked.

The four defendant companies being represented are Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan PLC, and Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. Actavis is a subsidiary of Teva.

Of the similar actions ongoing in a multidistrict litigation in Ohio, a federal lawsuit in Northern California, and state lawsuits in Los Angeles and Orange counties, the Orange County action before Wilson is the most developed and could act as a road map for thousands of lawsuits nationwide.

Arguing for the people of California, are the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office, Orange County District Attorney's Office, and the Los Angeles County Counsel's Office.

In addition to civil penalties, the people seek $50 billion in funds to abate the opioid crisis in the plaintiff counties and city, according to attorneys involved in the suit. People v. Purdue Pharma et al., 14-00725287 (Orange Super. Ct., led May 21, 2014).