VALSARTAN LOSARTAN AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
1:19-md-02875
D.N.J.Sep 18, 2019Background
- This MDL involves claims that generic valsartan products were contaminated with NDMA, causing personal injuries and economic losses; the litigation is large, costly, and involves ~60 defendants and potentially thousands of plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs filed three master complaints: individual personal-injury claims, a nationwide medical-monitoring class, and a nationwide economic-loss class.
- Defendants sought to add a Fact-Sheet request requiring plaintiffs to produce all documents and communications about any third-party litigation funding obtained to prosecute these claims.
- Plaintiffs objected as irrelevant and disproportionate but offered to submit funding documents for in camera review when a funder has control or input into litigation/settlement decisions.
- Defendants argued funding is relevant to real-party-in-interest/standing, witness bias, proportionality of discovery, sanctions, and medical-necessity/reasonableness of treatment; they invoked prior MDL orders and a supposed trend favoring disclosure.
- The Magistrate Judge denied broad funding discovery as irrelevant and disproportional to the needs of this MDL, but authorized in camera review on plaintiffs’ counsel request or upon good cause showing of funder control over litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of litigation funding to claims/defenses | Funding is irrelevant to causation, liability, and damages | Funding can reveal real party in interest, bias, and affect standing | Funding is not relevant here; discovery denied absent good-cause showing |
| Proportionality of funding discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) | Funding is a side issue and discovery would distract from core case issues | Disclosure is important for discovery scope, cost-shifting, and sanctions considerations | Discovery of funding is disproportional now given core issues still pending |
| Allegation that funder may control litigation/settlement | Plaintiffs deny such control; counsel will disclose if control exists | Defendants assert risk of funder-driven decisions that undermine plaintiffs' interests | If evidence shows funder control or counsel requests, court will conduct in camera review and may order discovery |
| Scope of automatic or carte-blanche discovery | Plaintiffs oppose automatic disclosure; offer limited in camera review | Defendants seek automatic inclusion in Fact Sheets | Automatic/carte-blanche disclosure denied; in camera review available on request or good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller UK Ltd. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 3d 711 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (denying discovery of litigation-funding details as irrelevant)
- Kaplan v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, L.P., 141 F. Supp. 3d 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (denying funding-disclosure where defendants failed to show relevance)
- Bryant v. Mattel, Inc., 573 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (distinguishing discoverable fee/payment arrangements of a key witness)