Photo: Alexander Tolstykh/Shutterstock.com

Plaintiffs lawyers representing plaintiffs in three separate cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries have alleged over the past six weeks that attorneys for the health care products company have engaged in improper contact with witnesses in the cases.

The most high-profile accusation was made in October in a Texas case involving a J&J subsidiary, in which a federal judge asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to look into allegations of witness tampering.

But, in early November lead counsel in the Xarelto litigation also made allegations that a sales representative for J&J subsidiary Janssen improperly contacted a key witness in the ongoing bellwether case, and that counsel for the company failed to properly notify the plaintiffs about the alleged contact until the eve of trial. Also, counsel for the plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh mass tort alleged that attorneys for defendant Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, intentionally misrepresented the whereabouts of a witness integral to a jurisdictional dispute that could result in having most of the litigation transferred out of Philadelphia.

Attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath have been involved in each of the disputes. A spokesman for the firm did not provide a comment for this story as of press time.

A spokesman for J&J has denied the allegations.

“We contend that these allegations are completely without merit, and are simply meant to distract from the issues in these cases,” Ernie Knewitz said in an emailed statement.

One of the attorneys involved in the DePuy case filed a motion in mid-October saying she did not ask the DePuy sales rep to “do anything or communicate” with the witness at issue, a doctor who had filed an affidavit suggesting witness tampering. The judge ultimately determined that the jury would not be able to hear about the alleged witness tampering, and on Thursday, the jury awarded the plaintiff $247 million.

“The court's finding shows that opposing counsel's allegations—particularly the suggestions of criminal wrongdoing—were an unfair and unfounded attack on the integrity of the company and its legal team. We are glad to now have that matter behind us,” attorney John Beisner, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who is also representing DePuy, said in an emailed statement.

In the Xarelto matter, after the allegations first arose Janssen produced a signed declaration from the sales representative saying she did not speak with the witness, who was a treating doctor for the plaintiffs, but merely left materials with the doctor's assistant asking him to attend a presentation. In the wake of the allegations, a spokeswoman for Janssen also said the allegations were “completely without merit,” and “simply meant to distract from the issues” in the case.

However, the judge handling that case agreed to allow the sales representative to be deposed, and on Nov. 15, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow the jury to hear arguments about whether the contact may have impacted the witness's testimony.

The allegations involving Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, were spelled out in a Nov. 6 motion to the court regarding a dispute that recently emerged over whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol Myers-Squibb v. Superior Court of California means that Philadelphia lacks jurisdiction over Ethicon in most of the pelvic mesh cases filed there.

The allegations about defense counsel's conduct involve efforts by plaintiffs counsel to take the deposition of a former Ethicon employee regarding whether the company used materials made by a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer in its mesh devices. According to the motion, plaintiffs counsel sought to depose former Ethicon employee James Williams, but defense attorneys responded that Williams no longer worked for Ethicon, and that they would “continue to work to obtain Mr. Williams' contact information.” Defense counsel also suggested that a current Ethicon employee be deposed instead, according to the motion.

However, the motion said, plaintiffs attorneys found Williams' contact information through a simple internet search, and during the deposition learned that Williams had lived at the same location long before he left Ethicon and that Ethicon had contacted him in October to tell him he might be deposed.

“So on the very day that Ethicon told the court that it would 'work to obtain Mr. Williams' contact information,' it telephoned Mr. Williams,” the motion said. “The court should be aware of Ethicon's dissembling and what appears to be flat-out dishonesty when trying to prevent Mr. Williams' deposition from taking place.”

The motion said the conduct could justify sanctions, but asked that the court should use the company's alleged conduct when making credibility determinations about Williams' deposition, which plaintiffs attorneys said greatly supports their position.

Attorney Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, who is a lead attorney in the pelvic mesh litigation, declined to comment for the story.

One clear theme to the allegations is that they are emerging over especially high-stakes issues.

The allegations involving DePuy arose in a bellwether trial over the company's hip implant. Two previous trials landed $502 million and $1.04 billion verdicts.

The allegations involving Xarelto arose in the first bellwether trial to take place in Philadelphia, after the plaintiffs suffered a string of losses in federal court, and the jurisdictional dispute in the pelvic mesh case could significantly reduce the number of cases pending in Philadelphia, where Ethicon has been hit with numerous multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $57.1 million award in September.

Photo: Alexander Tolstykh/Shutterstock.com

Plaintiffs lawyers representing plaintiffs in three separate cases against Johnson & Johnson subsidiaries have alleged over the past six weeks that attorneys for the health care products company have engaged in improper contact with witnesses in the cases.

The most high-profile accusation was made in October in a Texas case involving a J&J subsidiary, in which a federal judge asked the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to look into allegations of witness tampering.

But, in early November lead counsel in the Xarelto litigation also made allegations that a sales representative for J&J subsidiary Janssen improperly contacted a key witness in the ongoing bellwether case, and that counsel for the company failed to properly notify the plaintiffs about the alleged contact until the eve of trial. Also, counsel for the plaintiffs in the pelvic mesh mass tort alleged that attorneys for defendant Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, intentionally misrepresented the whereabouts of a witness integral to a jurisdictional dispute that could result in having most of the litigation transferred out of Philadelphia.

Attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath have been involved in each of the disputes. A spokesman for the firm did not provide a comment for this story as of press time.

A spokesman for J&J has denied the allegations.

“We contend that these allegations are completely without merit, and are simply meant to distract from the issues in these cases,” Ernie Knewitz said in an emailed statement.

One of the attorneys involved in the DePuy case filed a motion in mid-October saying she did not ask the DePuy sales rep to “do anything or communicate” with the witness at issue, a doctor who had filed an affidavit suggesting witness tampering. The judge ultimately determined that the jury would not be able to hear about the alleged witness tampering, and on Thursday, the jury awarded the plaintiff $247 million.

“The court's finding shows that opposing counsel's allegations—particularly the suggestions of criminal wrongdoing—were an unfair and unfounded attack on the integrity of the company and its legal team. We are glad to now have that matter behind us,” attorney John Beisner, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who is also representing DePuy, said in an emailed statement.

In the Xarelto matter, after the allegations first arose Janssen produced a signed declaration from the sales representative saying she did not speak with the witness, who was a treating doctor for the plaintiffs, but merely left materials with the doctor's assistant asking him to attend a presentation. In the wake of the allegations, a spokeswoman for Janssen also said the allegations were “completely without merit,” and “simply meant to distract from the issues” in the case.

However, the judge handling that case agreed to allow the sales representative to be deposed, and on Nov. 15, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to allow the jury to hear arguments about whether the contact may have impacted the witness's testimony.

The allegations involving Ethicon, another J&J subsidiary, were spelled out in a Nov. 6 motion to the court regarding a dispute that recently emerged over whether the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol Myers-Squibb v. Superior Court of California means that Philadelphia lacks jurisdiction over Ethicon in most of the pelvic mesh cases filed there.

The allegations about defense counsel's conduct involve efforts by plaintiffs counsel to take the deposition of a former Ethicon employee regarding whether the company used materials made by a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer in its mesh devices. According to the motion, plaintiffs counsel sought to depose former Ethicon employee James Williams, but defense attorneys responded that Williams no longer worked for Ethicon, and that they would “continue to work to obtain Mr. Williams' contact information.” Defense counsel also suggested that a current Ethicon employee be deposed instead, according to the motion.

However, the motion said, plaintiffs attorneys found Williams' contact information through a simple internet search, and during the deposition learned that Williams had lived at the same location long before he left Ethicon and that Ethicon had contacted him in October to tell him he might be deposed.

“So on the very day that Ethicon told the court that it would 'work to obtain Mr. Williams' contact information,' it telephoned Mr. Williams,” the motion said. “The court should be aware of Ethicon's dissembling and what appears to be flat-out dishonesty when trying to prevent Mr. Williams' deposition from taking place.”

The motion said the conduct could justify sanctions, but asked that the court should use the company's alleged conduct when making credibility determinations about Williams' deposition, which plaintiffs attorneys said greatly supports their position.

Attorney Shanin Specter of Kline & Specter, who is a lead attorney in the pelvic mesh litigation, declined to comment for the story.

One clear theme to the allegations is that they are emerging over especially high-stakes issues.

The allegations involving DePuy arose in a bellwether trial over the company's hip implant. Two previous trials landed $502 million and $1.04 billion verdicts.

The allegations involving Xarelto arose in the first bellwether trial to take place in Philadelphia, after the plaintiffs suffered a string of losses in federal court, and the jurisdictional dispute in the pelvic mesh case could significantly reduce the number of cases pending in Philadelphia, where Ethicon has been hit with numerous multimillion-dollar verdicts, including a $57.1 million award in September.