Latest / The Jon and Marc Podcast / The 4 Mass Tort Developments Plaintiff Firms Should Be Watching

Transcript

The 4 Mass Tort Developments Plaintiff Firms Should Be Watching · The Jon and Marc Podcast

• 0:00
  Welcome to Tour Talk. The time may have changed, but
• 0:03
  we will be here no matter what. I'm Mark Ryu and join as always
• 0:07
  by John Robinson and Joe Fantini.
• 0:09
  We have a massive show for you today.
• 0:11
  The plaintiff has officially rested in the social media
• 0:15
  addiction trial of the year. We'll look at what the defense
• 0:18
  plans to do next, plus a major weight loss drug update and what
• 0:21
  it means to the US litigation. We're also breaking down the
• 0:24
  Make or Break Daubert hearings, the Hair Relax for MDL, and a
• 0:28
  huge update on the Roundup class action approval in Missouri.
• 0:32
  A lot of agencies sell services, SEO packages, paid media
• 0:35
  packages, social packages, but our digital doesn't really
• 0:39
  operate that way. We build acquisition systems
• 0:42
  while staying tactic agnostic about how they get there.
• 0:45
  And we're founder owned. It's Mark and I, so we're not
• 0:48
  going to force your law firm into whatever the agency happens
• 0:51
  to sell. If that's the kind of alignment
• 0:53
  you want, check out r.digital@rrdigitalmedia.com.
• 0:58
  In the social media addiction trial, the plaintiff has finally
• 1:01
  rested. We have the defense now with a
• 1:04
  chance to present their case. What do you think the defense
• 1:06
  will focus on as we bring this trial hopefully close to its
• 1:11
  end? Like you mentioned, John, we
• 1:13
  just rested the plaintiff's case.
• 1:15
  I think it went extremely well. We heard from the plaintiff, the
• 1:19
  plaintiff therapist even had a chance to question Zuckerberg
• 1:23
  during that initial few weeks of the trial.
• 1:26
  Now that we pivoted to the defense case, really what
• 1:29
  they're focusing on so far is trying to prove and show all of
• 1:33
  the steps they went to to make sure that the platform was safe.
• 1:37
  So they're going to bring forward some of their experts.
• 1:40
  We're going to hear and learn a little bit of more about what
• 1:43
  they think was adequate and was sufficient to protect the
• 1:46
  minors. They're already talking about
• 1:48
  and throwing out numbers for Meta.
• 1:51
  How much content of the sexual nature is being pulled down
• 1:55
  every day constantly in an effort to show that they're
• 1:59
  really going above and beyond to protect and keep the kids safe?
• 2:03
  But what that's not really doing is focusing on the algorithm and
• 2:07
  how it does impact the kids and whether or not they did
• 2:10
  everything in their power to really protect the minors, like
• 2:13
  the plaintiff we have in this case.
• 2:15
  Based on the information that is available to you, because we
• 2:19
  know that no one is actually in the courtroom, do you feel like
• 2:21
  this is heading towards a positive direction for the
• 2:24
  plaintiffs at this time? It does.
• 2:26
  It seems like it was a very strong case presented by the
• 2:29
  plaintiff. It went a little bit longer than
• 2:30
  we were thinking early in the was we would have had gone to
• 2:34
  the jury at the end of last week.
• 2:36
  It looks like we're going to have almost a full week here
• 2:38
  before it gets to the jury. So I'd be surprised if we have a
• 2:42
  verdict by the end of this week. Probably by the time we talk
• 2:45
  next week we'll have a verdict and it looks like it's going to
• 2:48
  be in plaintiff's favor. We'll see how big of a number it
• 2:51
  is, compensatory damages and punitive damages.
• 2:55
  Hopefully if we can score punitive damages, that really
• 2:59
  sets everybody up for the cases going forward.
• 3:01
  I'm waiting for the results built on this one.
• 3:03
  John, I know the policy is going on vacation next week.
• 3:05
  Do not bother me, but please text me an update when the
• 3:07
  verdict comes out. You got it.
• 3:10
  No problem all. Right.
• 3:11
  Moving on to the weight loss MDL, both the gastrointestinal
• 3:16
  injuries and vision loss cases are moving forward.
• 3:18
  We saw also that in the UK it's a Regulatory agency which is
• 3:22
  like comparable to the FDA in the USA over here issued an
• 3:26
  update warning that semi glutide usage may result in serious eye
• 3:31
  conditions NAOIN that cause vision loss.
• 3:36
  How do you think this impacts the newly formed MDL?
• 3:38
  This is a huge development. We often see that the FDA is a
• 3:43
  little bit slower to react and a little bit further behind
• 3:47
  compared to our counterparts across over in the UK and in
• 3:51
  other regulatory in areas. So basically what happened is
• 3:55
  the regulatory authority who's almost like the FDA over there
• 3:59
  came out based upon the information and the studies
• 4:02
  available to them, they've updated the warning now on these
• 4:05
  medication saying that it could cause this injury, this very
• 4:09
  rare eye condition that you mentioned.
• 4:12
  So basically what I expect to happen over the next year or six
• 4:16
  months, we're going to hear from the FDA.
• 4:19
  And then if they find that there is this correlation, then
• 4:22
  they're going to update and issue a black box warning, which
• 4:25
  basically is going to prevent the defendants from raising the
• 4:28
  preemption argument, which for sure they're going to charge.
• 4:31
  So that would basically establish the correlation
• 4:34
  between the medication and the injury, making the cases much
• 4:37
  easier for the plaintiffs. Pretty similar to what we're
• 4:40
  seeing going on in the Depo Rivera litigation, where we had
• 4:44
  an updated warning label during the actual litigation, which
• 4:48
  really tilts in favor of the plaintiffs.
• 4:51
  Yep, making. Progress on these weight loss
• 4:54
  drugs. It's good to see that report
• 4:55
  come out of the UK in Hair Relaxer, our next case.
• 4:59
  It is now make or break time in the MDL.
• 5:01
  At a recent case management conference, the judge was
• 5:04
  focused on Dalbert. What can you tell us about the
• 5:07
  progress being made there? Like you mentioned, John, we
• 5:10
  just had a case management conference in the hair relaxer
• 5:12
  litigation. Pretty much all the attentions
• 5:15
  focus on Dalbert. So this is when the case is
• 5:18
  either going to be made or we're going to end up having some
• 5:21
  serious problems. Basically what we have going on
• 5:24
  is there's 10 separate plaintiff experts.
• 5:26
  Each one of them are going to be challenged by the defendants.
• 5:29
  The defendants have a certain amount of pages to challenge
• 5:32
  each one, and then the plaintiffs can come back in a
• 5:35
  response and they're limited to 10 page per expert or 100 pages
• 5:39
  total. And then the defendants get a
• 5:41
  chance for a reply brief totalling 50 pages.
• 5:45
  What we'll then see is ultimately get to a hearing and
• 5:49
  then the judge is going to rule whether or not the experts come
• 5:52
  in. Not all ten of our experts are
• 5:54
  likely to survive. I'd expect some of them to get
• 5:57
  kicked out. But that's why we have so many.
• 6:00
  You usually don't want in an MDL to just relying on one expert.
• 6:04
  So having a number of them is really good.
• 6:07
  But we need to remember in this litigation, we're also going
• 6:10
  after three separate cancers. So it'll be interesting to see
• 6:14
  which experts come in. And if all three cancers
• 6:17
  survive, we'll likely have the hearing some point in April.
• 6:20
  And then before the summer, we'll get the ruling.
• 6:23
  And then that's really going to shape the framework for the
• 6:25
  first bellwether trials early in 2027.
• 6:28
  And remember, this was #1 reigning #1 on our Tor Talk
• 6:32
  power ranking, so we will see how these diver hearings go to
• 6:35
  see if it retains its crown. Yeah, really important hearing.
• 6:39
  I'm still feeling good. All the buzz that's coming out
• 6:42
  of it is very positive. We'll see how these Dolber
• 6:45
  rulings go, but if we can get six or seven through, it's
• 6:49
  looking really great. We usually don't talk about the
• 6:51
  state, but it's the focus of this next update.
• 6:53
  Missouri. So Roundup preliminary approval
• 6:56
  was granted in the Roundup Missouri class action.
• 6:59
  What does does everyone need to be doing with their inventory
• 7:01
  now? Yeah, this is moving really
• 7:03
  fast, so way faster I. Thought it was going to.
• 7:07
  Yeah, you and everybody else. So that the proposed class
• 7:10
  action was filed and then 15 days later the court entered A
• 7:14
  preliminary approval order granting the class action.
• 7:18
  So preliminary approval order isn't a final approval order.
• 7:21
  Instead, it's the judge saying that they believe that the
• 7:25
  framework and the terms of the settlement are reasonable.
• 7:28
  What everybody really needs to know is that there's a 90 day
• 7:32
  time period for anybody to opt out of the settlement.
• 7:34
  So if you want to opt out of the settlement, meaning you don't
• 7:37
  want to go forward with the settlement, you want to move
• 7:40
  forward with your case individually, go forward in
• 7:43
  state court, you have to get a, a wet signature, so an original
• 7:47
  signed document, not DocuSign, and also submit copy of your ID
• 7:52
  and some other requirements related to your specific case or
• 7:56
  your case is going to be included.
• 7:58
  And then we end up having the fair, this hearing, which is
• 8:01
  going to be in July, where people get the challenge with
• 8:04
  objections or opt outs. But really important, you only
• 8:07
  have 90 days to get everything together for your inventory.
• 8:11
  So you need to be getting in touch with your clients,
• 8:13
  reviewing the medical records, seeing which tier they would
• 8:16
  fall into under the proposed settlement, and then counseling
• 8:20
  them and deciding whether or not they want to opt out or move
• 8:23
  forward. With what we have in place right
• 8:25
  now, this is moving at breakneck speed.
• 8:28
  I think part of the reason is because where you have this
• 8:31
  appeal up on the Supreme Court, we're going to have oral
• 8:34
  arguments at the end of April and a decision before the end of
• 8:38
  June. It looks like the court and the
• 8:39
  parties wanted to get everybody tied in before we heard from the
• 8:43
  Supreme Court about whether or not these claims are preempted.
• 8:46
  So moving rapidly, we'll give you guys updates as we move
• 8:50
  forward, but make sure you're reaching out to the clients
• 8:53
  right now, have all the medical records and going over the
• 8:56
  different tiers to see if it's a good option for your clients.
• 8:59
  Let me know if I heard you correctly.
• 9:00
  So firms have 90 days to get a wet signature from their
• 9:04
  clients. 90 days if the plaintiffs want to opt out,
• 9:07
  meaning if they don't want to participate.
• 9:09
  If they do want to participate, you don't need that wet
• 9:12
  signature. But it's really the clients that
• 9:14
  could have a really big case, somebody that has a lot of
• 9:17
  exposure, really big damages, maybe a recurrence of cancer, a
• 9:21
  lot of chemo treatment. Those are potentially the cases
• 9:24
  that you'd want to reach out to your clients particularly to see
• 9:28
  if they want to go for it with the settlement or they'd elect
• 9:31
  to stay in. So Yep, there's certain
• 9:32
  requirements related to this opt out period we're in.
• 9:37
  It's a lot of stuff to get done in 90 days.
• 9:39
  Thank you for answering the question before I even asked it.
• 9:42
  I was going to ask you, is it that people with better cases,
• 9:46
  potentially more damages are the ones that want to opt out or the
• 9:49
  opposite? And it seems like if you've got
• 9:52
  those really good cases, you may want to contact your clients
• 9:54
  directly and make sure that they are getting full attention on
• 9:58
  those individualized cases versus getting lumped into the
• 10:00
  class action. But I did want to ask you, Joe,
• 10:03
  what happens as this class action moves forward?
• 10:06
  And then what if the defense gets a favorable ruling from the
• 10:10
  Supreme Court? Could they pull back on what
• 10:12
  they've already proposed in the class action settlement?
• 10:15
  Potentially, but I think that'd be unlikely.
• 10:18
  So the defendants do have a termination date which gives
• 10:21
  them the opportunity to basically say they don't want to
• 10:24
  go forward with the deal anymore.
• 10:26
  But it seems like they're really pushing the settlement and want
• 10:29
  to get it resolved. So they're saying there's 60,000
• 10:33
  cases in Missouri that would be impacted by this.
• 10:36
  There's some cases going on in New Jersey or Philadelphia or in
• 10:39
  them DL, which don't see like they'd be included.
• 10:42
  There's a potential to get involved, but it seems like this
• 10:45
  is a deal. Monsanto and Bears really
• 10:47
  driving. I think from their perspective,
• 10:49
  they want the deal to happen. Yeah, put some finality on it.
• 10:52
  Exactly, I think. It's the end of the list, right?
• 10:55
  That is the end of the list. You want to take us home?
• 10:57
  You got it. Me.
• 10:59
  My back hurts, I'm carrying this teeth.
• 11:03
  All right. Thank you, Joe.
• 11:04
  Thanks, Mark. Another great week here.
• 11:07
  Best 10 minutes in mass torts each week on Tortalk.
• 11:09
  We will see you next week for another episode of Tortalk.