The Evidence Speaks for Itself

Below are links to several important court filings. We will add more public documents as they are filed if we think they’re particularly important to understanding McKesson’s point of view on the opioid litigation.

Why are we sharing these documents?

Because we want you to know the full story. Distinguishing between facts and opinions in today’s news is not easy, and sometimes even journalists with the best intentions get things wrong or only tell one side of the story. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ lawyers – who are paid based on the plaintiffs’ recoveries in court – have been aggressively promoting their side of the story.

At McKesson, we believe in letting you hear both sides of the story, and we strongly believe that the facts and law support our case. Below are links to the public court filings that lay out some of the detail that you probably haven’t heard from the plaintiffs’ lawyers or the media.

Connecticut Dismissal Order
A judge in Connecticut dismissed all claims brought by cities and counties against McKesson and other companies in the supply chain, finding that under longstanding law the plaintiffs have no claims at all.

Defendants' Opposition to Certification of a Negotiation Class: Some of the defendants filed a brief opposing the creation of a “negotiation class” consisting of every city and county in America. The brief argues that the applicable rules do not authorize the Court to “certify a free-floating 'MDL' class, that is untethered to any specific lawsuit.”

Defendants’ Motion for Additional Trial Time: The defendants have filed a motion opposing the strict time limits that the court has placed on our ability to mount a defense at trial. The motion argues that “Defendants cannot be forced to sacrifice key elements of their defenses in order to accommodate an unreasonable seven-week timeframe, particularly when facing claims that Plaintiffs’ experts have valued in the billions of dollars.”

Motion to Disqualify Judge: Eight of the defendants have filed a motion to disqualify the judge presiding over the multidistrict litigation pending in federal court. The brief states: “Defendants do not bring this motion lightly. Taken as a whole and viewed objectively, the record clearly demonstrates that recusal is necessary.”

Ohio Attorney General’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
The Ohio Attorney General has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that, by allowing cities and counties to bring claims separate from those of the state governments of which they are a part, the October trial in Cleveland “will cripple the federal dual-sovereign structure of these United States.”