Defense stymies expert testimony and materials in opioid trial

An attorney for the state said she was frustrated Tuesday in a $50 billion opioid trial after lawyers representing four drug companies accused of deceptive marketing effectively blocked her from presenting marketing documents she said they knew were authentic.

Defense attorneys' constant stream of successful objections have all but stifled the state's ability to admit documents into evidence and question key expert witnesses in the landmark bench trial in Orange County.

The outcome of the case, being tried remotely, will likely affect thousands of settlements in lawsuits filed nationwide by states and municipalities that claim Purdue Pharma and other opioid producers fueled an opioid crisis by marketing drugs as safe and effective pain treatments while downplaying the risk of addiction.

With hundreds of people listening in daily, California's case against Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Allergan PLC, and Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., has progressed fitfully.

Questioning of medical marketing expert Matthew Perri, formerly of the University of Georgia, was suspended Tuesday after Rhode Island attorney Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick of Motely Rice LLC, who represents the people of California, tried but failed to admit marketing materials.

"They know this is authentic, they know it is a business record and they are using games to keep relevant evidence out of this case," Fitzpatrick told Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Wilson. "Your honor, I'm sure you can tell I am a bit frustrated."

In response, Wilson told Fitzpatrick that while he recognized her frustration, the documents could not authenticate themselves and neither could Perri, who is not an employee of any of the drug company defendants. Wilson explained further that Perri could not confirm whether the documents were officially used and if so, for what marketing purposes.

"There is quite literally nothing I could anticipate from this witness that could authenticate this material," Wilson told Fitzpatrick before denying her attempt to lay a foundation for Perri's ability to authenticate the material.

Wilson, who has repeatedly admonished the attorneys for wasting the court's time on document disputes, said while he would grant Fitzpatrick's request "this one time," to have Perri stand down and come back another time, he would not allow proceedings to be sidetracked again.

At least three landmark opioid trials, including the one in California, a trial underway in West Virginia, and a federal bankruptcy case in New York, could establish road maps for settlements in some 3,000 lawsuits filed throughout the country against Purdue, it's founders, the Sackler family, and other drug companies.

The Sackler family has been trying for months to propose a global settlement that would wipe out existing claims and involve relinquishing their bankrupt company and paying over $4 billion from their private estate. However, several public officials and activists have opposed the idea and 24 state attorneys generals and the attorney general for the District of Columbia, in an objection brief, called the proposed settlement plan "unprecedented," "unjust" and "unconformable as a matter of law."

"There is no dispute that this crisis has impacted all of America," the objection document reads. "The economic costs to America have been, and continue to be, in the trillions of dollars. ... Yet, despite their own admitted guilt, the debtor seeks to cram down an unconfirmed plan that, among other things, would absolve nondebtor wrongdoers in exchange for the stretched-out payment of only a tiny fraction of their independent liability, unlawful gains, and current wealth...."

The proposed settlement will be argued in a hearing scheduled for May 12, in federal bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York.

Meanwhile, the Orange County trial will continue Wednesday. 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., filed May 21, 2014).