Opinion ID: 1461215
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Investigation of Purdue

Text: The government had been investigating Purdue prior to the filing of Radcliffe's suit. According to a declaration executed by an Assistant United States Attorney, one area of investigation concern[ed] whether Purdue falsely marketed OxyContin as being twice as potent as morphine and, accordingly, less expensive than MSContin. Id. at 775. In the same declaration, the Assistant United States Attorney stated that the 2:1 comparison of OxyContin to MSContin [sic][wa]s one of the areas under investigation. Id. Beginning in 2002 and continuing for the next several years, the government sought millions of documents from Purdue and conducted hundreds of interviews, some of which pertained to the relative potency and cost of OxyContin and MS Contin. Id. On June 24, 2005, an attorney representing several Purdue employees spoke with a lawyer from the Department of Justice regarding topics to be discussed during those employees' grand jury testimony. Id. The Justice Department attorney indicated that she intended to (and subsequently did) ask the employees about the dispute over the relative potency of OxyContin and MS Contin, among other topics, explaining that this related to the marketing and cost implications of the relative potencies. Id. Around that same time, the government began drafting a subpoena that included requests for all documents discussing relative analgesic potency or safety of OxyContin and MS Contin. Id. Other documents under seal also reflect that prior to the filing of Radcliffe's suit, the government had made an additional request for the identity of the author and source of different versions of a document... already in the government's possession that questioned the 2:1 ratio between MS Contin and OxyContin. Radcliffe, 582 F.Supp.2d at 775. The government's investigation of Purdue's marketing claims continued after Radcliffe's execution of the Release. Indeed, on August 2, 2005, the day after Radcliffe signed the Release, the government subpoenaed Radcliffe to testify before the grand jury. Id. at 776. In September 2005, the Department of Justice provided Purdue's counsel with electronic search terms designed to identify documents pertaining to the potency/cost issue. Id. Radcliffe filed his qui tam suit on September 27, 2005. [4] On May 7, 2007, the government filed a notice that it would not intervene in the qui tam suit filed by Radcliffe. Two days later, the government filed a criminal information against a related Purdue entity and several Purdue executives, along with executed plea agreements for all the criminal defendants. Although the criminal charges did relate to the misbranding of OxyContin, these charges focused on Purdue's marketing of OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications. Id. (quoting Information ¶ 20, United States v. Purdue Frederick Co., No 1:07-CR-00029 (W.D.Va.)). The misbranding charges did not pertain to the 2:1 ratio and although the plea agreements settled certain civil claims by the government, they did not address the claims made in the qui tam suit. Radcliffe, 582 F.Supp.2d at 776.