Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter:(1) Notice of Motion by the defendants, dated November 10, 2017, and supporting papers (including Memorandum of Law);(2) Affirmation in Opposition by the plaintiffs, dated January 19, 2018, and supporting papers (including Memorandum of Law);(3) Reply Affirmation by the defendants, dated February 20, 2018, and supporting papers (including Memorandum of Law); and(4) Letter from the plaintiffs’ attorney to the court, dated February 27, 2018; it is
*1 ORDERED that the motion by the defendants for an order staying all proceedings in this action is denied. By way of this motion, the defendants seek a stay of this action pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the court’s inherent authority to stay proceedings.In support of their motion, the defendants contend that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently investigating the benefits and risks of opioid medications and chronic opioid therapy, and that it would be premature to adjudicate claims that the defendants misrepresented those benefits and risks while FDA review remains ongoing. The defendants also contend that the FDA is uniquely qualified to resolve such matters relating to public health, and that imposition of a stay pending the outcome of its post-market studies will help ensure uniform and consistent application of the law in all the jurisdictions where similar litigation is taking place.The plaintiffs, in opposition to the motion, argue that this litigation is backward-looking, not forward-looking; because the focus of this lawsuit is on the state of scientific knowledge that existed when the defendants made their marketing claims, there is no risk of inconsistent rulings, and none of the current studies will have any bearing on whether the defendants’ representations