No link between J&J opioids and sales in California, expert testifies

There is no link between California's opioid crisis and the sale of three Johnson & Johnson pain drugs a statistics expert said Monday during a $50 billion bench trial nearing its end in Orange County.

Statistics expert Laurentius Marais of Compass Lexecon in Chicago testified the sale of three prescription drugs made by Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary -- consisted of less than 1% of the total prescription opioid drug sales in the state between 1997 and 2018. He also said no statistical correlation existed between opioid related deaths and the rate of prescription opioid sales in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Clara, as well as the city of Oakland, which are the plaintiffs.

"There is no indication in these data of facial, statistically significant correlation between these two data items," Marais said.

Representing Janssen last week, Washington, D.C. defense attorney Steve Brody of O'Melveny & Myers LLP played a tape of Santa Clara County Coroner Dr. Michelle Jordan's deposition in which she said she could not identify a single death attributed to specific medications produced by any of the four drug company defendants in the suit.

California's false advertising, unfair competition and public nuisance suit accuses Janssen, Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and Allergan PLC of fueling an opioid crisis in the state by downplaying risks of addiction in their marketing. Purdue, the most often named drug company in thousands of opioid suits filed since 2014, is sitting out the trial, pending the completion of a bankruptcy case in New York.

The state is represented by the offices of the Santa Clara county counsel, the Orange County district attorney, the Los Angeles county counsel and the Oakland city attorney as well as by Motley Rice LLC, Skikos Crawford Skikos & Joseph LLP and Robinson Calcagnie Inc. The lawsuit, which is the first government-initiated opioid court action in the nation, is being tried remotely before Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter Wilson.

Janssen's defense case comes after it agreed to a $230 million settlement last month in a similar opioid lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia Ann James.

Purdue and the Sackler family that owns it are nearing a $4.5 billion bankruptcy plan and settlement with 15 states that agreed to it last week. However, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is among the dissenters who remain opposed to the proposed plan.

Under the novel reorganization deal, Purdue would emerge as a public benefit corporation run by trustees approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Roger D. Drain of the Southern District of New York.

California, joined by eight other states and the District of Columbia, opposes the deal, which would likely shield Purdue from further litigation relating to its sale of painkilling opioids. Critics say that public agencies will end up operating Purdue. In re: Purdue Pharma LP et al., 19-23649 (S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Ct, filed Sept. 15, 2019).

In addition to civil penalties, the municipalities participating in the Orange County suit seek $50 billion to abate an opioid crisis in their jurisdictions, according to attorneys involved in the lawsuit. The outcome of the suit, which is entirely in Wilson's hands, will likely affect some 3,000 settlements in lawsuits filed nationwide by states and municipalities that claim Purdue and other opioid producers fueled an opioid crisis. People v. Purdue Pharma et al., 14-00725287 (Orange Super. Ct, filed May 21, 2014).