Title: Ex parte Cardinal Health, Inc., et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: DCH Health Care Authority et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. and Fort Payne Hospital Corporation et al. v. McKesson Corporation et al.) (Conecuh Circuit Court: CV-19-7 and CV-21-900016).
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC-2023-0468
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 10, 2024

Rel: May 10, 2024 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern 
Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other 
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
 
OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024 
 
_________________________ 
 
SC-2023-0468 
_________________________ 
 
Ex parte Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.  
 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
 
(In re: DCH Health Care Authority et al.  
 
v. 
  
Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. 
 
and 
 
Fort Payne Hospital Corporation et al. 
 
v. 
 
SC-2023-0468 
2 
 
McKesson Corporation et al.)  
 
(Conecuh Circuit Court: CV-19-7 and CV-21-900016) 
 
SHAW, Justice. 
 
PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION. 
 
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, 
JJ., concur.  
 
Cook, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.  
 
Sellers, J., dissents. 
 
 
SC-2023-0468 
3 
 
COOK, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
In these actions, a number of health-care providers have brought 
suit against various manufacturers and distributors of opioids. The 
health-care providers ("the plaintiffs") own or operate hospitals in 
Alabama.  They allege that the manufacturers and distributors ("the 
defendants") have created a public nuisance in Alabama. It is fair to say 
that the actions are among the larger civil actions in the history of the 
Alabama courts.  
This mandamus petition concerns a discovery dispute. The 
plaintiffs have alleged in their complaints that, as a result of the public 
nuisance, they have incurred "special damages."1 Just over 11 weeks 
before trial, the plaintiffs presented an expert economic report regarding 
additional damages they expected to incur to implement a "mitigation 
plan."  Sometime later, the plaintiffs presented a separate expert report 
setting forth the contents of that "plan." In response, the defendants 
 
1"Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any 
individual but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the 
state." § 6-5-121, Ala. Code 1975. However, "[i]f a public nuisance causes 
a special damage to an individual in which the public does not 
participate, such special damage gives a right of action." § 6-5-123, Ala. 
Code 1975.  
 
SC-2023-0468 
4 
 
asked the Conecuh Circuit Court for permission to conduct additional fact 
discovery related to the costs associated with that newly disclosed "plan," 
but that request was denied.  
As a result of that denial, the defendants are now asking this Court 
to issue a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant a 
continuance of the scheduled trial and to permit them to conduct 
discovery relating to the plaintiffs' newly presented "mitigation plan." 
According to the defendants, the plaintiffs' "mitigation plan" really 
constitutes a claim for "abatement" damages -- a forward-looking remedy 
designed to remove the nuisance. Because the plaintiffs previously, and 
repeatedly, denied that they were seeking such "abatement" damages, 
the defendants argue that they are now entitled to the opportunity to 
obtain fact discovery related to those damages.  
In response, the plaintiffs argue that they are not seeking 
"abatement" damages. Instead, they assert that their plan constitutes 
merely a claim for "mitigation" damages, or costs to reduce any future 
damages they may incur, rather than to abate the opioid crisis in society 
in general.  
I find this debate over the label of the damages at issue -- abatement 
SC-2023-0468 
5 
 
or mitigation -- to be pointless. Indeed, as noted by the defendants, "[a] 
party's ability to confront claims for hundreds of millions of dollars 
should not hinge on wordplay and gamesmanship." Reply brief at 3.  
Instead, I believe that the focus should be on whether the defendants are 
entitled to an opportunity to seek discovery of materials and information 
relevant to the damages the plaintiffs expect to incur to implement their 
"mitigation plan."  Based upon my review of the briefs, no party argues 
(at least not now) that the discovery that the defendants seek is 
irrelevant.   
Nor is this discovery dispute over something small or insignificant.  
The "mitigation" damages sought by the plaintiffs -- between $160 and 
$230 million -- would essentially double the claimed damages in the 
cases, bringing the total damages now sought in the upcoming trial to 
almost half of a billion dollars. 
As explained below, it is for these reasons that I respectfully 
dissent, in part, and would thus grant the petition and issue the writ for 
the limited purpose of giving the defendants the opportunity to seek what 
SC-2023-0468 
6 
 
I believe is necessary and relevant discovery.2  
Facts and Procedural History 
 
 In September 2019, some of the plaintiffs commenced an action in 
the Conecuh Circuit Court against various opioid manufacturers, 
distributors, and retailers. In March 2021, a second set of plaintiffs 
commenced a similar action in the same court. Those cases were 
consolidated by the trial court and have previously generated a variety of 
petitions for the writ of mandamus before our Court on several legal 
issues.3  These actions are just a fraction of the many actions across the 
 
2I note that the defendants also argue in their petition that one of 
the plaintiffs, Evergreen Medical Center, LLC ("Evergreen"), failed to 
sufficiently comply with certain discovery requests. As a result, the 
defendants request that this Court continue the upcoming trial and order 
more discovery regarding Evergreen. Because I do not believe that the 
defendants have demonstrated that they have a clear legal right to such 
an order, I concur with this Court's decision to deny the defendants' 
requested mandamus relief on that issue. 
 
3This petition arises from the same set of consolidated actions that 
have produced the prior opinions by our Court or by members of our 
Court. See Ex parte McKesson Corp., [Ms. SC-2023-0289, Dec. 22, 2023] 
____ So. 3d ____ (Ala. 2023); Ex parte Cardinal Health, Inc., [Ms. 
1210337, Mar. 17, 2023] ____ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. 2023) (Sellers, J., 
dissenting); Ex parte Endo Health Sols. Inc., 354 So. 3d 488 (Ala. 2021) 
(plurality opinion); and Ex parte Johnson & Johnson, 330 So. 3d 480 (Ala. 
2020). 
 
SC-2023-0468 
7 
 
nation in both state and federal court that are making similar (and 
sometimes overlapping) nuisance claims related to opioids.4 
In the consolidated actions, the plaintiffs' initial claims against the 
defendants were as follows:  
"'1. Plaintiffs operate hospitals that provide 
acute 
care 
throughout 
Alabama 
including 
treatment for opioid-dependent patients suffering 
from opioid-related conditions. These patients 
routinely seek services at Plaintiffs' emergency 
 
4There have been settlements in many of those cases. There have 
also been several settlements by the State of Alabama -- which bear on 
the discovery at issue in this petition. See, e.g., Press Release, Attorney 
General Steve Marshall, Attorney General Marshall Announces $350 
million Opioid Settlement with Multinational Marketing Firm Publicis, 
Office of the Alabama Attorney General (Feb. 1, 2024); Press Release, 
Attorney General Steve Marshall, Attorney General Steve Marshall 
Announces $276 Million in State of Alabama Settlements with Opioid 
Manufacturers, Distributor, Office of the Alabama Attorney General 
(Apr. 19, 2022).  
 
A few of the remaining actions have gone through trial or judgment. 
See, e.g., State ex rel. Hunter v. Johnson & Johnson, 499 P.3d 719 (Okla. 
2021) (reversing a $465 million trial judgment against a single 
defendant). See also In re National Prescription Opiate Litig., Case No. 
1:17-MD-2804, Aug. 22, 2022 (N.D. Ohio 2022) (not reported in Federal 
Supplement); City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 
620 F. Supp. 3d 936 (N.D. Cal. 2022); City of Huntington v. 
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., 609 F. Supp. 3d 408 (S.D. W. Va. 2022). 
But see, e.g., State ex rel. Stenehjem v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Case No. 
08-2018-CV-01300, May 10, 2019 (D. N.D. 2019) (not reported in Federal 
Supplement) (dismissing a public-nuisance action against an opioid 
manufacturer for failure to state a claim). 
 
SC-2023-0468 
8 
 
rooms and occupy beds in the Plaintiffs' Hospitals. 
Hospitals are legally and morally compelled to act 
and treat all of these patients, regardless of the 
price. 
 
"'2. Defendants are the manufacturers, 
distributors, 
and 
dispensers 
of 
prescription 
opioids. By flooding Plaintiffs' communities with 
opioids, by pushing false narratives surrounding 
the safety of opioids, and by failing to take steps to 
prevent diversion of opioids, they have created an 
epidemic of misuse, abuse, addiction, and death.' 
 
"(Footnote omitted.) The plaintiffs also alleged that '[t]he 
average cost of providing care for patients diagnosed with 
opioid use disorder is eight times higher than for those 
without opioid use disorder'; that those patients must still be 
provided with complete care; and that 'private and 
government insurance does not cover these increased costs.' 
(Footnote omitted.) In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs 
further alleged that the opioid pandemic constituted a 
continuous and abatable public nuisance. The plaintiffs 
stated claims of negligence, wantonness, public nuisance, 
unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and civil conspiracy." 
 
Ex parte McKesson Corp., [Ms. SC-2023-0289, Dec. 22, 2023] ____ So. 3d 
____, ____ (Ala. 2023).  
 
In September 2022, the plaintiffs amended their complaints to add 
allegations that the defendants had created an "opioid epidemic" that had 
caused the plaintiffs " 'to incur and continue to suffer an extensive 
operational impact on their ability to do their jobs -- rendering care to all 
SC-2023-0468 
9 
 
members of the communities they serve.'"  Ex parte McKesson, ____ So. 
3d at ____. They thus alleged claims of negligence, wantonness, public 
nuisance, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and civil conspiracy 
against the defendants. 
 
The trial court split the consolidated cases into two litigation 
"tracks." The "Track One" trial, which involves plaintiffs that own and 
operate eight private hospitals, was set to try only the public-nuisance 
claim. The parties to this mandamus petition -- the defendants5 and 
several of the plaintiffs6 -- are those scheduled to participate in the 
"Track One" trial. 
 
I. Discovery 
During the initial phases of discovery in the present litigation, the 
 
5The petitioners are the following remaining defendants: Johnson 
& Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan Finance, LLC; 
Allergan Sales, LLC; Allergan USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Teva 
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; 
Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Noramco, Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp.; 
Anda, Inc.; Cardinal Health, Inc.; H.D. Smith, LLC; Henry Schein, Inc.; 
and McKesson Corporation.  
 
6The respondents are the plaintiffs that own and operate the 
following hospitals: Evergreen Medical Center, Walker Baptist Medical 
Center, Princeton Baptist Medical Center, Thomas Hospital, Jackson 
Hospital, Crestwood Medical Center, Gadsden Regional Medical Center, 
and Ft. Payne/DeKalb Regional Hospital.    
SC-2023-0468 
10 
 
plaintiffs asserted that, although they had pleaded a claim for abatement 
damages in their complaints, they were not seeking such damages in the 
"Track One" trial. Despite those assertions from the plaintiffs, the 
defendants requested discovery relating to abatement damages. The 
plaintiffs objected to those requests on the basis that the requested 
discovery was "not relevant to the parties' claims and defenses" because 
abatement was not at issue. 
For example, in 2021 the defendants served a series of 
interrogatories that, among other things, asked the plaintiffs to do the 
following:  
"Identify and Describe all of Your efforts to date to abate 
the harms alleged in the Complaint, including any 
Educational Activities aimed at either prescribers or patients, 
… providing addiction treatment, expansion of the use of 
naloxone, or any other similar activities or efforts undertaken 
by You. Include in your response the specific dollar amount 
that You have expended on each program, initiative, or other 
effort You identify."  
 
(Emphasis added.) The plaintiffs objected to this request on the ground 
that it "s[ought] the disclosure of information not relevant to the parties' 
claims and defenses, … [was] outside the scope of permissible discovery, 
and s[ought] information in violation of the Court's Amended [case 
SC-2023-0468 
11 
 
management order] … limiting discovery to information relating to 
Hospital Plaintiffs' public nuisance claims and Hospital Plaintiffs' special 
damages." (Emphasis added.) 
Some of the specific information sought in this interrogatory is 
exactly what was later included by the plaintiffs in their "mitigation 
plan," including, for instance, information regarding the plaintiffs' 
"educational activities," "addiction treatment," "expansion of the use of 
naloxone" and "any other similar activities." Further, the interrogatory 
specifically asked for the "efforts undertaken by You" -- in other words, 
efforts that the plaintiffs now claim are part of their "mitigation plan."   
Again, in 2021, the defendants served the plaintiffs with a set of 
requests for production of documents in which they requested "[a]ll 
documents, data, and information supporting or otherwise relating to the 
monetary and equitable relief [the plaintiffs] s[ought] to recover through 
this litigation, including but not limited to any alleged costs, 
expenditures, damages, harm, loss, or abatement costs." (Emphasis 
added.) This is an even broader request that would have included 
evidence of the costs that are now claimed (going forward) in the 
mitigation plan. The plaintiffs objected, in part, to those requests also.  
SC-2023-0468 
12 
 
A. Amended Scheduling Order -- Trial Set for July 24, 2023 
In October 2022, the trial court issued an amended scheduling 
order, which provided as follows: 
"a. Document production shall be substantially complete by 
October 5, 2022. 
 
"b. Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures [are] due by December 7, 
2022. 
 
"…. 
 
"d. Completion of Fact Depositions by January 30, 2023. 
 
"e. Defendants' Expert Disclosures [are] due by February 28, 
2023. 
 
"…. 
 
"g. Completion of Expert Depositions by June 7, 2023. 
 
"h. Track 1 trial to begin July 24, 2023." 
 
(Emphasis omitted.)   
 
In compliance with that order, the plaintiffs disclosed their expert 
witnesses in December 2022. Those disclosures indicated, among other 
things, that there were several experts who were expected to testify to 
the plaintiffs' claimed compensatory damages, which, according to the 
mandamus petition, were approximately $240 million. Specifically, those 
experts were expected to testify on, among other things, the "operational 
SC-2023-0468 
13 
 
impact" incurred by the plaintiffs when treating patients with opioid-use 
disorders.  
Those expert disclosures also indicated that a few experts would 
testify about the plaintiffs' "mitigation" damages but did not list any 
additional amounts for those damages. For example, the plaintiffs' expert 
disclosures indicated that Dr. Joshua Lynch, a physician, would testify 
to "programming, resources, and/or strategies to reduce the harms 
associated with opioid abuse commonly found in patients with opioid use 
disorder who are treated at acute care hospitals." Those disclosures 
further indicated that Dr. Mireille Jacobson, an economist, would testify 
about "the economic impact to Alabama hospitals like Plaintiffs, 
including the estimated costs they would incur, from implementing 
certain mitigation measures," such as screening programs designed "to 
mitigate the harms they experience due to the … Defendants' alleged 
misconduct concerning prescription opioid shipments." (Emphasis 
added.) Based upon the materials before this Court, this appears to be 
the first mention of "mitigation" damages in discovery materials.  
However, at that same time, the plaintiffs expressly reasserted 
their objections to the defendants' earlier interrogatories.  Although the 
SC-2023-0468 
14 
 
interrogatories to which the plaintiffs objected included a request for 
information regarding damages to "abate," they also specifically included 
requests relating to what the plaintiffs now label as mitigation costs.  For 
instance, the interrogatories requested information for the plaintiffs' 
costs for educational materials, "providing addiction treatment, 
expansion of the use of naloxone," and "other similar activities or efforts 
undertaken by [the plaintiffs]."  
B. Plaintiffs Submit Supplemental Expert Report in May 2023 that 
States the Costs of their "Mitigation Plan" 
 
Approximately 11 weeks before trial, on May 4, 2023, the plaintiffs 
produced a supplemental expert disclosure of Dr. Jacobson that, for the 
first time, expressly explained and itemized mitigation damages. That 
disclosure explained that Dr. Jacobson was "expected to testify regarding 
the economic impact to Alabama hospitals, including Plaintiffs hospitals, 
to mitigate the harms experienced because of the … Defendants' conduct 
concerning prescription opioids." (Emphasis added.) Dr. Jacobson's 
testimony would further include "the estimated future costs Plaintiffs 
would incur from implementing certain mitigation measures, including 
education, workforce development, naloxone, screening programs …, 
Medication-Assisted Treatment …, and telehealth resources." (Emphasis 
SC-2023-0468 
15 
 
added.) 
The plaintiffs' supplemental disclosure also included a report from 
Dr. Jacobson detailing the estimated costs of a 20-year "mitigation plan" 
for the plaintiffs, which appeared to contain much of the information that 
the plaintiffs had previously objected to disclosing to the defendants in 
response to their 2021 discovery requests mentioned above. In that 
report, Dr. Jacobson provided estimates for the costs of various services 
and programs suggested by another expert -- Dr. Lynch.  Those included 
educational materials like community mailers, a Web presence, 
community presentations, and employee education. It also included costs 
for "workforce development," access to naloxone, telehealth resources, 
and screening programs in hospital emergency departments. Notably, 
even at that time, the defendants did not yet have a copy of Dr. Lynch's 
report detailing the services and programs recommended in the 
"mitigation plan" for which Dr. Jacobson provided dollar estimates.7   
 
7It is unclear from the materials before our Court the exact date 
that the defendants ultimately received Dr. Lynch's report on mitigation, 
but the materials before this Court clearly show that this report was not 
available until after Dr. Jacobson's report.  In fact, the parties appear to 
agree that this report was provided after Dr. Jacobson's deposition and 
that Dr. Lynch was deposed still afterwards.  
 
SC-2023-0468 
16 
 
Dr. Jacobson's new report estimated costs between $160 million 
and $230 million would be necessary to implement such a "mitigation 
plan." Five days later, the defendants deposed Dr. Jacobson.  
II. Pretrial Motions 
After the disclosure of the plaintiffs' cost estimations for their 
"mitigation plan," the defendants, on May 30, 2023, moved the trial court 
to continue the trial date of the "Track One" trial, arguing that a 
continuance was necessary due to "several outstanding areas of fact and 
expert discovery that cannot be completed under the current trial 
schedule." The trial court denied that motion. 
 
On June 2, 2023, the defendants moved the trial court to allow 
discovery as to the plaintiffs' "abatement" claim in light of their newly 
presented "mitigation plan." The defendants argued that they were 
entitled to an opportunity to investigate the plaintiffs' "historical steps to 
address the effects of the alleged nuisance in their service area, their plan 
to do so in the future, and historical, ongoing, and projected efforts to 
remove the alleged nuisance by other public and private actors in the 
area."  
 
On June 13, 2023, the trial court ordered the plaintiffs to state 
SC-2023-0468 
17 
 
whether they intended to seek abatement damages and, if so, to "explain 
why they should not be estopped from pursuing those damages at the 
Track 1 trial." 
In their response to the trial court's order, the plaintiffs maintained 
that they were not seeking abatement damages in their "mitigation 
plan." Instead, the plaintiffs claimed that they sought compensatory 
damages, which, according to them, included the cost of mitigating the 
damages they would incur in the future. They also argued that the 
defendants had placed mitigation damages in issue in the litigation by 
"assert[ing] a failure to mitigate damages" as an affirmative defense.  
On July 3, 2023 -- when the trial court had not yet ruled upon their 
motion to allow discovery but three weeks before trial -- the defendants 
petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to 
grant (1) the defendants' motion for discovery on the information relevant 
to the damages included in the plaintiffs' "mitigation plan" and (2) their 
request for a continuance to complete the necessary discovery.8 
 
8The defendants did not initially request that this Court stay the 
trial-court proceedings; instead, a stay had been requested while we 
considered the separate mandamus petition in Ex parte McKesson Corp., 
supra, which had previously been filed in this Court.  The stay in that 
SC-2023-0468 
18 
 
After the defendants' mandamus petition was filed, the trial court 
entered an order granting the defendants' motion in part and denying it 
in part. The trial court denied most of the motion.  It found that most 
steps in the "mitigation plan" related to "specific measures … aimed at 
reducing the impact of the alleged nuisance on the hospitals, as opposed 
to reducing or eliminating the nuisance itself," including: "employee 
training, costs associated with naloxone and other supplies needed to 
treat OUD [opioid-use-disorder] patients and expansion of telehealth and 
outpatient treatment of OUD patients."  However, the trial court also 
found that a few of the measures in the plan went "beyond reducing the 
economic impact of the crisis on the hospitals" and were instead "aimed 
at reducing or eliminating the alleged public nuisance itself."  The trial 
court concluded that those measures -- such as "requir[ing] [the] 
[d]efendants to pay for resources to educate members of the community 
 
matter was issued July 10, 2023.  Therefore, the trial scheduled for July 
24, 2023, did not occur.  
 
After this Court released its decision in Ex parte McKesson Corp., 
supra, the defendants requested that the trial court stay the proceedings 
pending the resolution of this petition, which the trial court denied.  The 
defendants thereafter filed a motion to stay the trial-court proceedings in 
this Court, which has not been ruled upon. 
SC-2023-0468 
19 
 
at large on the dangers of opioid use" -- constituted "abatement" damages. 
The trial court then found that, "[b]ecause the abatement claim ha[d] 
been abandoned as to Track 1, no claim for such relief may be advanced 
at the Track 1 trial," and it therefore concluded that "there [was] no need 
for the discovery requested by the [d]efendants." 
Discussion 
In their mandamus petition, the defendants argue that the trial 
court has essentially allowed the plaintiffs to "add" a new claim -- or at 
least a new form of damages -- in their "mitigation plan" and, at the same 
time, has foreclosed discovery on that issue.  According to the defendants, 
the plaintiffs seek new damages as follows: 
"Their proposed abatement plan demands $160 to $230 
million from Defendants to fund hospital programs to (1) 
educate the public and healthcare profession on the risks of 
opioids, (2) train hospital staff on treating opioid-use disorder 
('OUD'), (3) increase access to overdose medication, (4) 
increase access to OUD medication, and (5) increase access to 
OUD telehealth services.  This plan presents a very different 
form of relief from Plaintiffs' damages claim, which seeks to 
compensate the plaintiff-hospitals for certain alleged internal 
hospital costs." 
 
Petition at 7 (emphasis and footnote omitted). 
As noted above, the plaintiffs respond by arguing that the plan does 
SC-2023-0468 
20 
 
not assert a new claim or form of damages. Instead, they argue that their 
claims seeking to recover for their efforts to "mitigate" damages -- a 
measure that the plaintiffs are required to take under Alabama law -- 
have been at issue throughout the entire litigation. Answer at 13 (citing 
Avco Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Ramsey, 631 So. 2d 940, 942 (Ala. 1994)). The 
plaintiffs also assert that the defendants "had ample opportunity to 
depose [their] experts" on the "mitigation" damages and that the 
defendants earlier "deposed [their Ala. R. Civ. P.] 30(b)(6) corporate 
witnesses and individual employees" and thus were not deprived of 
meaningful discovery. Answer at 15-16. 
Once again, I see no reason to debate whether the estimated costs 
set forth in the plan constitute damages for "abatement" or "mitigation" 
at this point in the litigation. Regardless of the label of the plaintiffs' 
claimed damages, the defendants repeatedly sought discovery directly 
relating to the costs of the services and programs included in the 
"mitigation plan." Yet the plaintiffs denied the defendants that discovery.  
In fact, at one point, the plaintiffs even argued in briefing to the trial 
court regarding prior discovery disputes that the information relating to 
their "Treatment Drugs," such as naloxone, was not discoverable 
SC-2023-0468 
21 
 
because it was "not an issue in the trial." (Emphasis and bold typeface in 
original.)  
I also note that the costs that the plaintiffs incurred in performing 
those services and enacting those programs in the past is directly 
relevant to the costs the plaintiffs estimate that they will spend on those 
same services and programs in the future. The defendants are therefore 
entitled to this information before going to trial.  
The defendants are also entitled to an opportunity to rebut the 
damages claimed in the "mitigation plan." This might include, for 
instance (1) retaining an expert witness to evaluate the validity of the 
estimated costs or the necessity/scope of the mitigation plan and 
producing a new expert report,9 (2) seeking third-party discovery 
relevant to the necessity and scope of the plaintiffs' mitigation plan (for 
 
9On June 30, 2023, less than a month before trial was scheduled to 
begin, the defendants submitted a supplemental expert disclosure "in an 
abundance of caution." Maintaining their position that they had "not had 
the opportunity to conduct any discovery on Plaintiffs' abatement claim," 
the defendants disclosed a new expert to respond to the opinions given by 
Dr. Lynch and Dr. Jacobson. I note that, because the defendants had been 
denied discovery relevant to the items included in the mitigation plan 
and their cost estimates, the defendants did not have the requisite 
materials for their newly disclosed expert to have the ability to respond 
and to rebut the claims set forth in the plaintiffs' "mitigation plan."  
SC-2023-0468 
22 
 
instance, information regarding the scope and detail of the abatement 
plan of the State of Alabama arising from its own opioid settlements (see 
note 4, supra) which might be relevant to the need or scope of the 
plaintiffs' own plan), or (3) seeking documents and seeking fact 
depositions from the plaintiffs regarding the past and future costs (and 
the actual future plans of the plaintiffs) relating to these types of 
"mitigation" actions. 
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants were not denied discovery 
related to their "mitigation" damages because the defendants had the 
opportunity to depose their expert witnesses -- including Dr. Jacobson 
and Dr. Lynch -- their hospital representatives, and their hospital 
employees.  
Although the defendants acknowledge in their mandamus petition 
that they "have been compelled to ask a limited number of [the p]laintiff 
experts and fact witnesses in recent depositions about [the p]laintiffs' 
abatement plans," Petition at 9 n.23, they also point out that "[t]hose 
examinations took place without any other party or third-party 
discovery" relating to this new theory of recovery. Id. (emphasis added). 
Likewise, the defendants note that those depositions "merely confirmed 
SC-2023-0468 
23 
 
the necessity of further discovery." Reply brief at 10.  
Furthermore, Dr. Jacobson's deposition occurred just five days after 
the plaintiffs produced the "mitigation plan." In addition, the fact 
depositions of the hospital representatives and employees occurred before 
the plaintiffs disclosed to the defendants the future mitigation plan and 
the additional $160-$230 million claimed in "mitigation" damages. 
Moreover, the defendants did not receive Dr. Jacobson's report 
estimating the amount of "mitigation" damages claimed by the plaintiffs 
until 11 weeks before trial. Even at that point, the defendants did not 
have Dr. Lynch's report detailing the basis for the services and programs 
for which those costs were estimated. Further, the deadline for fact 
depositions expired before either of these expert reports were disclosed, 
and the deposition of Dr. Lynch did not occur until June 5 (only seven 
weeks before trial).10   
Given that the defendants were previously denied discovery 
 
10I do not intend to suggest in this dissent that the plaintiffs have 
acted improperly.  I do not believe that it is helpful to attribute blame to 
any party for their objections, disclosures, choice of words, failure to press 
earlier or harder for discovery, or timing of disclosures.  Regardless of 
blame, this action is poised to go to trial on a claim for very significant 
damages without adequate discovery.  This is not the way our judicial 
system is designed to function.  
SC-2023-0468 
24 
 
relevant to specific items asserted in this "mitigation plan" and that the 
total damages sought in this case will now be almost half a billion dollars, 
I believe that the defendants are entitled to an opportunity to seek 
discovery of materials and information relevant to the plaintiffs' 
purported "mitigation plan." 
Is this Particular Discovery Dispute Subject to Mandamus Review? 
Even if the defendants are entitled to the discovery they request 
here, however, there remains the question whether the specific discovery 
issue they have raised is subject to mandamus review. Our Court has 
repeatedly emphasized that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary 
remedy that is only appropriate when the petitioner demonstrates: "(1) a 
clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an imperative duty upon the 
respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of 
another adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of the 
court." Ex parte BOC Grp., Inc., 823 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Ala. 2001).  
 
Our Court has also stated that, "[g]enerally, an appeal of a 
discovery order is an adequate remedy, notwithstanding the fact that 
that procedure may delay an appellate court's review of a petitioner's 
grievance or impose on the petitioner additional expense; our judicial 
SC-2023-0468 
25 
 
system cannot afford immediate mandamus review of every discovery 
order." Ex parte Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003) 
(footnote omitted). Our Court has, however, recognized that,  
"[i]n certain exceptional cases, however, review by appeal of a 
discovery order may be inadequate, for example, ... when the 
trial court ... denies discovery going to a party's entire action 
or defense so that, in either event, the outcome has been all 
but determined, and the petitioner would be merely going 
through the motions of a trial to obtain an appeal .... The 
burden rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that its petition 
presents such an exceptional case -- that is, one in which an 
appeal is not an adequate remedy." 
 
Id. at 813-14 (emphasis added). Because discovery matters are "within 
the trial court's sound discretion," our Court will only consider a trial 
court's ruling on a discovery issue via mandamus review "(1) where there 
is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion, and (2) 
where the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by ordinary 
appeal. The petitioner has an affirmative burden to prove the existence 
of each of these conditions." Id. at 813.  
 
Although Ocwen, supra, addresses review of an order denying 
discovery "going to" a party's "entire" defense, I cannot ignore the fact 
that the purported mitigation damages in this case would be one of the 
largest awards in the history of Alabama courts -- hundreds of millions 
SC-2023-0468 
26 
 
of dollars -- and would potentially double the ultimate damages awarded 
in this case. Thus, review of a discovery issue like the one here by a 
petition for a writ of mandamus would fall within the purview of Ocwen. 
See also Ex parte Hartley, 50 So. 3d 1102, 1104-05 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) 
(holding that a challenge to the trial court's refusal to allow discovery as 
to "one of the principal components of the relief sought ... falls within the 
exception noted in Ocwen pertaining to 'discovery going to a party's entire 
action or defense ....'" (quoting Ocwen, 872 So. 2d at 813-14)).  
Further, due process requires that the defendants have an 
opportunity to discover the information relevant to the damages claimed 
in the plan and be afforded sufficient time to prepare a defense. See Ex 
parte Medical Assurance Co., 862 So. 2d 645, 650 (Ala. 2003) ("[D]ue 
process demands that the parties … have a fair chance to prepare for 
trial, to conduct discovery, … and to conduct other necessary pretrial 
activities."). See also Ex parte Johnson, 485 So. 2d 1098, 1106-07 (Ala. 
1986) (explaining that the purpose of discovery includes "'"aid[ing] a 
party in preparing and presenting … his defense"'" and "'"eliminat[ing], 
as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the trial of lawsuits to the 
end that judgments be rested upon the real merits of cases …."'" (quoting 
SC-2023-0468 
27 
 
Ex parte Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 397 So. 2d 98, 103 (Ala. 1981), quoting in 
turn Am. Jur. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 155 (1965)). It is for all of 
these reasons that I believe that the defendants are entitled to 
mandamus relief here and must therefore respectfully dissent to the 
denial of their petition on that ground.  
However, despite my belief that the defendants are entitled to have 
some opportunity to conduct discovery and supplement their expert 
reports in relation to the "mitigation plan," I must emphasize that I 
believe that the trial court remains in the best position to make the 
decisions on how to structure discovery and deadlines going forward.  
This is especially true given the delays that have occurred while this 
mandamus petition has been pending. Thus, exactly how much time the 
defendants should receive to adequately discover facts and update expert 
testimony for the damages claimed in the "mitigation plan" is a decision 
that should be reserved for the trial court.