Suffolk County, NY - Attorneys for Endo International PLC asked a New York state court judge on Friday not to punish the pharmaceutical company with a default judgment over alleged discovery violations in an ongoing opioid crisis-related jury trial, and the high-stakes hearing was recorded gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network.
Plaintiffs in the case, which marks the first state court jury trial over claims that drug companies are responsible for the opioid addiction epidemic, asked Justice Jerry Garguilo to find Endo liable by default due to the late production of materials such as records of sales representatives to doctors.
Attorneys for the New York Attorney General’s office and two New York counties argued that an earlier production of those key records would have dramatically altered their trial strategy, and that the only appropriate remedy is the severe sanction of a default judgment.
Representing Endo, attorney Jonathan Redgrave characterized a default judgment as an extreme step not supported by the current record and suggested the appointment of a special discovery referee.
Endo and its counsel in the New York opioid litigation, Arnold & Porter, both expressed regret for the late production of sales records but denied any suggestion they were knowingly withheld, pointing to the fact the records had been produced in other opioid-related litigation in federal court.
During the hearing an attorney for the New York AG’s office played audio of supposedly newly obtained voicemails including an Endo employee describing a “March Madness” style tournament to increase opioid sales.
However Endo attorneys countered that similar materials had already been provided in discovery and suggested that these particular voicemails would not have a substantial impact on the plaintiff’s trial strategy.
If Endo received a default judgment only AbbVie Inc and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries would remain as defendants in a sprawling trial that began with opening statements in late June. The opening statements can be viewed here via CVN.
Justice Garguilo took the arguments under advisement following the conclusion of Friday’s hearing without issuing an immediate ruling.
The case is In Re Opioid Litigation, Suffolk Supreme Court, No. 400000/2017.
E-mail David Siegel at dsiegel@cvn.com