G.H. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 931
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 2002–2003 over 400 claimants (20 appellants here) executed a confidential global settlement and releases with Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb to resolve claims arising from pharmacist Robert Courtney’s chemotherapy dilution scheme.
- The settlement required confidentiality and appointed Special Masters (by the Jackson County Circuit Court) to allocate settlement funds; claimants could object and the court approved the Special Masters’ allocations.
- All claimants voluntarily dismissed their suits with prejudice and the settlement funds were distributed per the Special Masters’ awards.
- In February 2012 twenty claimants moved to reopen, void the settlement/releases, and vacate orders affirming the Special Masters’ awards, alleging their counsel violated MRPC 4-1.8(g) (aggregate-settlement disclosure) and that the settlement violated due process.
- The appellants also moved to unseal pleadings/exhibits relating to the settlement; the circuit court denied both the motion to vacate and the motion to unseal.
- On appeal the Missouri court affirmed: it held Rule 74.06(b)(4) relief for a “void judgment” was inappropriate because there was no final judgment to vacate (voluntary dismissals left no judgment), and it refused to unseal under principles including invited error and enforceable confidentiality provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 74.06(b)(4) permits vacatur of the settlement/releases as "void" | The settlement is void due to counsel’s violation of MRPC 4-1.8(g) and due process; Rule 74.06(b)(4) can relieve a party from a void judgment/order | There is no final judgment to vacate; parties voluntarily dismissed so Rule 74.06(b)(4) inapplicable; an independent rescission action would be the proper remedy | Denied: no judgment under Rule 74.01 existed to set aside; Rule 74.06(b)(4) inappropriate here |
| Whether the settlement is void because of alleged MRPC 4-1.8(g) violations | Attorneys failed to obtain informed written consent as required for aggregate settlements, rendering the settlement void as against public policy/due process | MRPC 4-1.8(g) is an ethical rule, not a statute invalidating settlements; aggregate settlements are permitted and the rule does not automatically void agreements | Court rejected vacatur on this basis; noted 4-1.8(g) does not by itself render the settlement void to all claimants |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by keeping settlement records under seal | Appellants: presumption of public access to judicial records; court failed to articulate legally sufficient reasons to seal | Defendants: parties agreed to strict confidentiality in the settlement and jointly asked the court to seal; any sealing was invited by the parties | Denied unseal: confidentiality provision enforceable; sealing was invited error by appellants, so they cannot complain on appeal |
| Whether Rule 74.06 is otherwise available (timeliness/alternate subsections) | Plaintiffs invoked Rule 74.06(b)(4); argued relief from voidness of court actions/orders | Defendants: other Rule 74.06 subsections (b)(5), (d) were not properly presented on appeal; appellants raised no timely or developed argument under those subsections | Court declined to consider other subsections not briefed; appellate review limited to presented arguments; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1997) (a writing must be denominated "judgment" or "decree" to be a judgment under Rule 74.01)
- State ex rel. Frets v. Moore, 291 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (voluntary dismissal is effective when filed and leaves the suit as if never brought)
- Tilzer v. Davis, Bethune & Jones, LLC, 204 P.3d 617 (Kan. 2009) (discussing MRPC 4-1.8(g) and aggregate-settlement disclosure; ethical rule does not automatically render settlement unlawful)
- In re Transit Cas. Co., 43 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. banc 2001) (nonexclusive list of sensitive information that can justify closing public records)
- Sprague v. Sea, 53 S.W. 1074 (Mo. 1899) (invited error rule: a party cannot complain on appeal about an error it caused or requested)