This archive report was first published on 14 September 2019.
Defendants in the landmark federal opioid trial are seeking to disqualify Judge Dan A. Polster, citing his bias against them. The motion, filed in federal court on September 14, 2019, claims that Judge Polster has shown his bias against the defendants by making extensive comments about his intention to settle the case and bring relief to local governments and individuals affected by the opioid crisis.
The defendants, including retail pharmacy chains Walgreens, Walmart, Rite Aid, and CVS, as well as drug distributors Cardinal Health, AmerisourceBergen, and McKesson, argue that Judge Polster has gone to unusual lengths to wade into settlement talks himself, which they say shows a bias toward such a resolution and against their position.
According to the defendants' lawyers, Judge Polster made comments about his intention to settle the case as early as January 2018, when he announced his goal of settling the case rather than having lengthy, costly trials. He continued to press his goal of settlement in public appearances and comments to the media, including articles in The New York Times.
Despite Judge Polster's initial statement that he wanted to resolve the case within a year, the deadline has long passed, and he has moved the litigation along two parallel tracks: one aimed at settlement and the other at litigation, featuring the trial scheduled to begin next month.
Legal experts say they are surprised at the timing of the move to disqualify the judge, as well as the extraordinary nature of the request. Howard Erichson, a Fordham law professor, noted that the request comes after a recent flurry of pretrial decisions against the defendants by Judge Polster.
“If recent rulings had been going the defendants' way, they wouldn't be seeking to get rid of the judge, despite his remarks to the press,” Mr. Erichson said.
