The judge in a product liability MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has rejected the defense’s motion to discover whether the plaintiff is using litigation funding.
An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe
The judge in a product liability MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has rejected the defense’s motion to discover whether the plaintiff is using litigation funding.
As reported in Bloomberg, Judge Joel Schneider followed previous court rulings in determining that defendants have no standing to inquire as to how deep the pockets of plaintiffs actually go.
In Civil No. 19-2875 (RBK/JS), Valstran (NDMA) Contamination Products Liability Litigation, the court rejected the motions to discover whether the plaintiffs were utilizing litigation funding, the terms of any funding agreements, and any communications between the plaintiff and litigation funders.
Defense had cited the need to discover if the plaintiffs were “real parties in interest” in the claim. However, the court flatly rejected that argument, in keeping with a host of previous judicial decisions. What’s more, the court went so far as to state that opening the door to the plaintiff’s finances would rightly open the door to defense’s as well.
The court did, however, indicate that there may be circumstances where discovery is appropriate. Such circumstances include any where a funder may be seeking to exert undue control over the outcome of a claim.
In the end, the plaintiffs suggested that the court review any funding agreements in-camera, to which Judge Schneider agreed. With Judge Polster ordering an in-camera in the prominent Opioid MDL, that seems to be the trend these days as pertains to funding agreements, at least where MDLs are concerned.
