Defense Opposition to Tolling Agreement
Key Points:
- Defense Opposition: Lawyers for the defense filed an opposition brief, outlining their refusal to agree to the tolling agreement proposed by the plaintiffs. The brief emphasizes that the proposed agreement is not in the defendants’ best interests.
- Rationale Behind Opposition: The defense brief rejects the plaintiffs’ argument that without a tolling agreement, plaintiffs’ lawyers would be compelled to “blind file” claims to avoid expiration of the statute of limitations (SOL) without proper investigation. The defense asserts that such an agreement poses risks for the defendants.
- Challenges in Collecting Medical Records: It is highlighted that collecting medical records, particularly from dentists, can be time-consuming. Without a tolling agreement, there is a possibility of discrepancies between victims’ accounts and medical records, leading to lawsuits that may not have been filed otherwise.
- Risks for Invidior: The defense is unwilling to take the risk of defending lawsuits where the victim’s version does not align with the medical records. There is a concern that the expiration of the statute of limitations on Suboxone lawsuits may lead to fewer cases being filed, mitigating risks for the defendant.
- Potential Impact: While some anticipated that Invidior would consent to a tolling agreement to avoid litigation in multiple jurisdictions, the current opposition suggests a different approach. The outcome now depends on the court’s decision regarding the proposed tolling agreement.
In summary, the defense’s opposition to the tolling agreement reflects their strategic considerations and concerns regarding potential risks and challenges in the litigation process. The court’s decision will ultimately determine the course of action moving forward.
