LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Legal Newsline) – It could be a high-profile – and costly - punishment for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge as she pursues her state’s opioid lawsuit.
She appealed to the state Supreme Court a sanctions order from Pulaski County judge Morgan Welch, who is hearing Rutledge’s case against companies Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma and Endo Pharmaceuticals – manufacturers of opioids being blamed for the nation’s addiction crisis in courtrooms around the country.
But the high court ruled June 10 that Rutledge appealed the sanctions order too early, and she’ll have to do it again when the case is resolved. Rutledge hired Baron & Budd and Dover Dixon Horne on contingency fees to pursue the case.
Disputes arose when the drug-makers asked for information they felt could help their defense but were refused. Ultimately, Judge Welch ordered Rutledge and her private lawyers to file an amended complaint that struck “any claim for any form of relief for any alleged harm associated with” five state agencies she says were forced to incur addiction-related costs because of the defendants.
She appealed the sanction, but the Supreme Court refused.
“Because the September 2020 order did not strike the State’s complaint in its entirety, it is not a final or otherwise appealable order…” Justice Shawn Womack wrote. “Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the State’s interlocutory appeal and dismiss.”
Five state agencies Rutledge alleged were harmed by addicts were the departments of Health, Human Services and Corrections, and the state police and state court system.
Endo Pharmaceuticals demanded proof, requesting information on each expenditure made as a result of an opioid addict’s actions. Rutledge refused, saying those records weren’t in the custody or control of her office. She told Endo to issue subpoenas to state agencies under Rule 45.
In August 2019, Endo asked a judge to force Rutledge to gather the info. Rutledge said the lawsuit was brought on behalf of the State, not individual state agencies, and that she lacked authority to compel discovery from those agencies.
Judge Welch sided, in part, with Endo, finding Rutledge had alleged “quantifiable” damages to state agencies. He ordered Rutledge to respond to Endo’s discovery requests.
Rutledge filed a notice of intention to seek damages on behalf of the five agencies mentioned above. The defendants, meanwhile, filed a joint motion to enforce Welch’s discovery order because they felt Rutledge’s responses were not complete and specific.
Rutledge had issued subpoenas to the five agencies to provide responsive discovery and that any deficiencies in those responses were out of her control.
J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals served four requests for documents from 16 agencies on Rutledge in June 2020. Rutledge again resisted, saying the case was brought on behalf of the State and that she didn’t have possession of other agencies’ documents.
Conferences with the state agencies failed, though Rutledge argued she complied with all of Welch’s orders. He disagreed, finding she neither “provided complete and specific discovery responses” nor “represented that such responses are forthcoming.”
As a result, he ordered her to file an amended complaint that struck claims for relief for the five state agencies. She will now need to do so and let her case run its course before she can appeal the sanctions order.