Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rock County ratifies authority for counsel to add defendants in opioid MDL including OptumRx
Summary
The board approved a resolution confirming and ratifying county counsel's authority to add additional defendants to Rock County's opioid litigation, including OptumRx and entities in MDL 2804, to insulate the county from procedural challenges.
Get email alerts on the Opioid Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rock County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday ratified a resolution confirming county corporation counsel's authority to add additional defendants to the county's opioid litigation, including entities identified in multidistrict litigation (MDL) case 2804.
Corp Counsel told the board Rock County is one of many local governments that sued manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies over opioid-related harms and has previously added defendants as discovery revealed additional information. "As many of you know and remember, we have been one of many units of local government that has served as a plaintiff and sued the manufacturers, distributors and retailers with regard to opioid prescription medications," Corp Counsel said, explaining that settlements and amended complaints have expanded the list of defendants over time.
Counsel said OptumRx, a pharmacy benefits manager, had mounted a legal challenge arguing that some local governments lacked authority to add it as a defendant and had demanded retainer agreements and records as part of that effort. To avoid procedural attacks and make clear the county authorized its attorneys to add additional defendants, counsel recommended a "belt and suspenders" resolution ratifying prior and future additions; the board approved the ratification by voice vote after a motion by Supervisor Gorman and second by Supervisor Wilson.
Corp Counsel said the ratification will be provided to plaintiffs'counsel to support litigation strategy and to counter attempts by defendants to pare down the plaintiff list. There were no recorded dissenting votes during the meeting.

