In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

1:17-md-02804

See also:

Court:

Ohio Northern

Nature of Suit:

P.I.: Other

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action, Multi-district Litigation

Judge:

Dan Aaron Polster (MDL 28

Firms

Companies

Government Agencies

Sectors & Industries:

  1. August 14, 2025

    OptumRx Flags Email Accidentally Sent To Opioid MDL Parties

    UnitedHealth subsidiary OptumRx Inc. is seeking a ban on secret communications with the Ohio federal judge overseeing sprawling national opioid litigation after the court-appointed special master accidentally sent the company an email, intended for the judge, celebrating a "gambit" that prevented objections to his decision.

  2. July 28, 2025

    PBMs Can't Escape NY State Law Claims In Opioid MDL

    Two UnitedHealth subsidiaries cannot escape claims that they exacerbated the opioid crisis by providing data analytics and consulting services to drugmakers, a federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation ruled on Monday, saying the New York state municipalities have adequately alleged RICO by claiming they were part of the same criminal conspiracy.

  3. June 03, 2025

    6th Circ. Denies PBMs' Privilege Claim In Opioid MDL

    A Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday denied a petition from Cigna's Express Scripts and UnitedHealth's Optum seeking to reverse discovery orders allowing certain personnel files and internal communications into the multidistrict opioid litigation, finding that the two pharmacy benefit managers failed to show extraordinary abuses justifying relief.

  4. May 01, 2025

    Publix Can't Slip 'Zero-Market Share' Opioid Claims

    Publix Super Markets Inc. can't slip opioid-related claims from nine municipalities in which the supermarket chain alleges it has no pharmacies, an Ohio federal judge overseeing sprawling national opioid litigation ruled.

  5. April 29, 2025

    Opioid MDL Judge Won't Recuse Over Ex Parte Allegations

    An Ohio federal judge will not step aside from multidistrict opioid litigation after the plaintiffs' attorney, who had alleged the judge "regularly communicates" with other lawyers involved in the litigation, testified that there was no such communication after all, the judge ruled Tuesday.

  6. April 03, 2025

    Optum, Express Scripts Want Judge Ousted From Opioid MDL

    Pharmacy benefit managers Optum and Express Scripts say the Ohio federal judge overseeing multidistrict opioid litigation should recuse himself because he "regularly communicates" with plaintiffs' attorneys in the litigation and is biased in favor of plaintiffs, according to a motion filed Wednesday.

  7. March 19, 2025

    Ohio Judge Blasts Fla. Atty In Opioid MDL For False Statements

    The Ohio federal judge overseeing multidistrict opioid litigation has sanctioned a Florida attorney who represents 15 municipal subdivision plaintiffs for repeatedly stating that members of their attorney leadership team regularly engaged in improper communications with the court.

  8. March 19, 2025

    Ohio Opioid Judge Says Texas Court Should Hear Appeal Bid

    An Ohio federal judge overseeing multidistrict opioid litigation denied Albertsons Cos.' request to appeal its summary judgment loss in the bellwether case brought by a Texas county, saying Wednesday that since pretrial proceedings are now done, the appeal should head to the appellate court for the Lone Star State.

  9. March 11, 2025

    Zydus Cuts Deal With States, Tribes In Opioid Nuisance Suit

    Zydus Pharmaceuticals Inc. has reached a deal in principle with states and Native American tribes that should quash claims related to the company's alleged role in exasperating the opioid crisis.

  10. January 29, 2025

    Albertsons Must Face County's Opioid Nuisance Claims

    Albertsons Cos. Inc. can't escape a Texas county's public nuisance claims stemming from opioid sales at the grocery giant's in-store pharmacies, an Ohio federal judge ruled Tuesday, saying there's a "common law duty of care" for pharmacies not to expose the county to a "reasonably foreseeable" risk of harm.