WEBVTT - Warhol's Prince Series at Second Circuit Again

0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:29.400
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. Oh. Prince,

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:33.880
<v Speaker 1>the music icon was captured on canvas by Andy Warhol

0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the artist icon in a series of twelve silk screen portraits.

0:00:38.560 --> 0:00:42.360
<v Speaker 1>Warhol used a photo of Prince by photographer Lynn Goldsmith

0:00:42.600 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>as the source material. The legal battle over the Prince

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:49.680
<v Speaker 1>series didn't begin for some thirty years. Goldsmith sued the

0:00:49.720 --> 0:00:54.200
<v Speaker 1>Warhol Foundation and just last month convinced the Second Circuit

0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:57.880
<v Speaker 1>that Warhol had infringed her photo of Prince. Now the

0:00:57.960 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Foundation wants another chance to argue its case, joining me

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:06.319
<v Speaker 1>as intellectual property litigator Terence Ross a partner Captain uten Rosenman,

0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:10.680
<v Speaker 1>So Terry tell us about the litigation history here. The

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:14.680
<v Speaker 1>District Court found that ferry us did apply to this

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:20.200
<v Speaker 1>case and ruled in favor of the Warhol Foundation and

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:24.680
<v Speaker 1>dismissed the case of Miss Goldsmith that there had been

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:28.560
<v Speaker 1>a copyright infringement. She then appealed it and the Second

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.800
<v Speaker 1>Circuit reversed the District Court, and frankly was a little

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:34.840
<v Speaker 1>bit critical of the way the District Court had reached

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:39.320
<v Speaker 1>its fair use conclusion, stating that the District Court had

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 1>in fact played art critic, and by analyzing the contestant

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 1>work from sort of art criticism point of view, had

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:53.880
<v Speaker 1>been able to reach a decision that the work was transformative.

0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:57.279
<v Speaker 1>And the Second Circuit thought that that was the wrong

0:01:57.320 --> 0:02:02.200
<v Speaker 1>approach and therefore overturned earned The decision of the District

0:02:02.280 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>Court held that there was no fair use here and

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:10.240
<v Speaker 1>rendered a decision in favor of the plaint of this Goldspence,

0:02:10.280 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 1>finding that there was copyright in Frenchman. I don't want

0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:16.200
<v Speaker 1>to play art critics, but when you compare the photograph

0:02:16.560 --> 0:02:20.280
<v Speaker 1>to Warhol silk screens, it's hard for me to understand

0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:23.639
<v Speaker 1>how the court didn't find this to be transformative. He's

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>known for doing these kind of pieces, transforming ordinary things

0:02:28.280 --> 0:02:32.800
<v Speaker 1>into extraordinary things, and the orange Prints is considered an

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:37.520
<v Speaker 1>important work of his. How is this not transformative? Well,

0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 1>your comment is particularly true one one reflects upon the

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:45.840
<v Speaker 1>previous Second Circuit decision in the Prince versus Crew case.

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 1>In that case, photographs of Rastafarians in Jamaica were taken

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:56.639
<v Speaker 1>and guitars were added drawn in, and various other almost

0:02:56.720 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>doodles were added to the photograph, and in that case

0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:05.320
<v Speaker 1>the Second Circuit found that that was transformative. In light

0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 1>of that case, it's hard to see an intellectually principled

0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:14.760
<v Speaker 1>rationale for finding in the Goldsmith case that there was

0:03:14.880 --> 0:03:20.120
<v Speaker 1>no transformative element. I think the issue here is really

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:25.800
<v Speaker 1>a split within the Second Circuit itself amongst the judges

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 1>of the Second Circuit as to how expansive the fair

0:03:30.840 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 1>use principle should be. And the broader the view you

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>have of the fair use doctrine, the more one is

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>likely to find transformative use. And conversely, the less expanse

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:45.680
<v Speaker 1>of one beliefs fair you should be, the less likely

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:49.360
<v Speaker 1>one is likely to find transformative use. And I think

0:03:49.400 --> 0:03:52.200
<v Speaker 1>that's really what's going on behind the scene in this

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:55.520
<v Speaker 1>case and is playing out in this Second Circuit decision.

0:03:55.920 --> 0:03:59.720
<v Speaker 1>So a week after the Second Circuit decision, the Supreme

0:03:59.760 --> 0:04:03.600
<v Speaker 1>Court it comes out with the Google Oracle decision. Tell

0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 1>us what happened after that? The Second Circuit said, Oops,

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:11.800
<v Speaker 1>let us rethink this. So the Foundation very quickly filed

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:16.719
<v Speaker 1>a motion for reconsideration or in the alternative or an

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:20.919
<v Speaker 1>on bonk review of the decision. So the Second Circuit

0:04:20.960 --> 0:04:24.039
<v Speaker 1>decision you're finding that there was no fair use was

0:04:24.120 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>rendered by a three judge panel. The defendants are essentially

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 1>saying that in light of the Google versus Worlek, a

0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>significant change in the law has occurred, and that therefore

0:04:36.920 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>the Second Circuit as a whole, all the judges the

0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:43.400
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit, not just the three judges Fanel, should reconsider

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.200
<v Speaker 1>this case and determine how the Google versus Oracles re

0:04:47.279 --> 0:04:53.480
<v Speaker 1>court decision impacts this specific appeal. Explain just basically the

0:04:53.520 --> 0:04:58.360
<v Speaker 1>Google versus Oracle decision. Google versus Oracle was a very

0:04:58.400 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 1>long running and complicated copyright infringement dispute involving the copying

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:06.719
<v Speaker 1>of certain code by Google in order to allow the

0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:10.479
<v Speaker 1>development of Android devices. The types of code copies were

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:15.360
<v Speaker 1>whatever known as APIs. It allows developers to develop and

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:20.800
<v Speaker 1>implement functionality around the Java system that Oracle developed in

0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>them and the Supreme Court decided that the use by

0:05:26.320 --> 0:05:29.719
<v Speaker 1>Google of these portions of the Java cub the API

0:05:30.080 --> 0:05:34.360
<v Speaker 1>was fair use and therefore did not constitute copyright infringement.

0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:38.840
<v Speaker 1>It was widely regarded as the most important decision in

0:05:39.000 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>copyright law in the context of computer programming that has

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:48.320
<v Speaker 1>ever been rendered. So how would that affect the Warhol case. Well,

0:05:48.440 --> 0:05:52.200
<v Speaker 1>that's a great question, Jim. On its face, hard pressed

0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 1>to see how it would impact the war Haul case

0:05:56.240 --> 0:05:59.520
<v Speaker 1>the Court. Justice Brier, writing on behalf of six of

0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 1>the eight justices who participated, was very careful to distinguish

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:08.400
<v Speaker 1>relatively early in his decision that this case was focused

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:13.960
<v Speaker 1>on computer software. Justice Bryer notes that there are sweet

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:18.640
<v Speaker 1>generous elements for this decision that really apply only to

0:06:19.080 --> 0:06:22.560
<v Speaker 1>computer program and in that sense, I am hard pressed

0:06:22.600 --> 0:06:26.960
<v Speaker 1>to see what the Second Circuit finds of interest in

0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:30.520
<v Speaker 1>Google Verson ll call visa the Goldsmith versus the war

0:06:30.600 --> 0:06:35.920
<v Speaker 1>Hal Foundation, Terry. The Second Circuit rarely grants on bank hearings,

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:38.720
<v Speaker 1>so why do you think they were even considering it

0:06:39.000 --> 0:06:42.040
<v Speaker 1>in this case? So June to put this in context,

0:06:42.520 --> 0:06:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit grants on bank review in a typical year

0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 1>and fewer than five percent of its cases, and there

0:06:48.800 --> 0:06:51.240
<v Speaker 1>are years in which it has granted only one or

0:06:51.240 --> 0:06:54.880
<v Speaker 1>two on bank reviews, and typically an on bank reviews

0:06:54.920 --> 0:06:58.480
<v Speaker 1>granted where there has been a significant one. We call

0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:01.120
<v Speaker 1>it almost to see change in the law that has

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.039
<v Speaker 1>taken place that the Second Circuits field has to weigh

0:07:04.120 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 1>in on, or an issue of first impression that is

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:10.240
<v Speaker 1>of such important that the Court as a whole has

0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 1>to weigh in on it. In that sense, it's hard

0:07:12.720 --> 0:07:17.000
<v Speaker 1>for me to understand how this particular case fits that criteria.

0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:20.200
<v Speaker 1>I don't view Google versus Oracle as changing the law

0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:24.400
<v Speaker 1>of fair use. The four factors that are applied were

0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:28.119
<v Speaker 1>not changed by the Supreme Court, and indeed, a manner

0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>in which they articulated the four factors that courts are

0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:35.440
<v Speaker 1>to consider in fair use cases was relatively typical a

0:07:35.560 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 1>past decision by Supreme Court and the circuit courts, including

0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:41.320
<v Speaker 1>the Second. What one has to believe is going on

0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:45.200
<v Speaker 1>here is that this internal split within the judges Second

0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:48.640
<v Speaker 1>Circuit is being played out in this Cold Smith versus

0:07:48.720 --> 0:07:52.560
<v Speaker 1>Andy Warhol Foundation case. There is a group of judges

0:07:52.600 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 1>and Second Circuits which, by the way, pioneers the notion

0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:59.080
<v Speaker 1>of a transformative factor in fair use. But there is

0:07:59.160 --> 0:08:01.560
<v Speaker 1>this faction with in the Court that believes that fair

0:08:01.680 --> 0:08:05.360
<v Speaker 1>use should be expansively interpreted, and I believe that they

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:10.920
<v Speaker 1>view the Google versus Oracle case as similarly expressing an

0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:15.840
<v Speaker 1>expansive view of fair youth. I don't think that that

0:08:16.200 --> 0:08:20.840
<v Speaker 1>is fair view of the Google versus Oracle case, and

0:08:21.200 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>therefore that is why I believe that the Court has

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:30.280
<v Speaker 1>asked for this additional briefing with respect to the Oracle

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:35.160
<v Speaker 1>versus Google case, and I would not be surprised if,

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:42.720
<v Speaker 1>even after the briefing, second Circuit denied on bonk review. Remember,

0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:44.880
<v Speaker 1>it takes a majority of the judges of the Second

0:08:44.920 --> 0:08:48.199
<v Speaker 1>Circuit to order it on bonk review, and I'm not

0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>sure that there is a majority of judges who are

0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:57.240
<v Speaker 1>willing to um grant granted here did the art world

0:08:57.480 --> 0:09:02.559
<v Speaker 1>or the intellectual property world find the Second Circuit's decisions surprising?

0:09:03.040 --> 0:09:05.720
<v Speaker 1>So you know, we've talked in the past about fair

0:09:05.840 --> 0:09:09.640
<v Speaker 1>use and copyright as being like a pendulum that swings

0:09:09.760 --> 0:09:13.800
<v Speaker 1>back and forth based on perceptions of public opinion. From

0:09:13.840 --> 0:09:16.720
<v Speaker 1>the Prince versus Crew case of the Second Circuit from

0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 1>a few years ago sort of represented a swing dramatically

0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:24.640
<v Speaker 1>in favor of a liberal interpretation of fair use, and

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:28.240
<v Speaker 1>since that time we've seen the pendulum swinging back the

0:09:28.360 --> 0:09:33.199
<v Speaker 1>other way toward a more traditional and slightly more challenging

0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:37.040
<v Speaker 1>view of the fair use doctrine. One of the things

0:09:37.080 --> 0:09:40.400
<v Speaker 1>that has happened and is not been noted by the

0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:44.240
<v Speaker 1>media with respect to the passing of Justice Ginsburg is

0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the dramatic change that meant for the Supreme Court and

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:52.319
<v Speaker 1>copyright law. Justice Brier and Justice Ginsburg represented the to

0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:57.680
<v Speaker 1>anypodes of copyright and fair use doctorate in American jurisprudence.

0:09:57.960 --> 0:10:01.560
<v Speaker 1>And while the media is focused on Siskinsburg's passing might

0:10:01.640 --> 0:10:04.559
<v Speaker 1>impact called political cases in which there is a conservative

0:10:04.600 --> 0:10:07.000
<v Speaker 1>or a liberal block at issue, then failed the note

0:10:07.120 --> 0:10:10.160
<v Speaker 1>the changes had on copyright law. And as soon as

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:13.040
<v Speaker 1>you saw that Justice Brier wrote this decision in Oracle

0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:15.920
<v Speaker 1>versus Google, you knew that it was going to be

0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:19.200
<v Speaker 1>a victory for Google and a finding that fair use

0:10:19.320 --> 0:10:22.079
<v Speaker 1>was justified. Because he has always, since he was a

0:10:22.080 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 1>professor at Harvard Law Scholl, supported an expansive view of

0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:30.439
<v Speaker 1>fair youth, whereas Justice Ginsburg has always in her decision

0:10:30.800 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 1>supported a much more limited view of fair use and

0:10:33.720 --> 0:10:36.520
<v Speaker 1>has been a strong supporter of copyright law. And her

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.439
<v Speaker 1>absence from the Court not just as a vote, but

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>as the intellectual bedrock for that view of copyright law

0:10:44.640 --> 0:10:48.160
<v Speaker 1>is sorely miss and it's really reflected in this Google

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:51.400
<v Speaker 1>versus Oracle cake where we see the expansive youth fair

0:10:51.520 --> 0:10:56.080
<v Speaker 1>use now predominating and Justice Fire being to obtain five

0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:58.920
<v Speaker 1>other votes for his position. Several which I don't think

0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:01.959
<v Speaker 1>would have been there. Justice Ginsburg had been on the

0:11:02.040 --> 0:11:06.280
<v Speaker 1>court to articulate and advocate for a cover review of

0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:10.360
<v Speaker 1>copyright infringement, and we now see that being played out

0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:13.240
<v Speaker 1>in the Second Circuit as well, with the judges in

0:11:13.280 --> 0:11:16.760
<v Speaker 1>their favorite or expanse of view of fair use doctrine

0:11:17.040 --> 0:11:20.679
<v Speaker 1>contempting to seize upon the sea shift at the Supreme

0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:24.080
<v Speaker 1>Court to argue for a comparable shift in the Second

0:11:24.160 --> 0:11:27.880
<v Speaker 1>Circuit law in real life? What does this decision mean

0:11:28.000 --> 0:11:31.599
<v Speaker 1>to the photographer here? So it depends on what the

0:11:31.640 --> 0:11:35.480
<v Speaker 1>Second Circuit decides if it grants on bonk review. If

0:11:35.520 --> 0:11:39.480
<v Speaker 1>it decides to overrule the panel decision, then the any

0:11:39.520 --> 0:11:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Warhouth foundation is off. The Hall doesn't have to negotiate

0:11:43.120 --> 0:11:46.480
<v Speaker 1>anything with the photographer. If they decide not to take

0:11:46.559 --> 0:11:49.520
<v Speaker 1>the case on bonk or to take it on bonk

0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:52.320
<v Speaker 1>and then continue to affirm the finding and no fair use,

0:11:52.400 --> 0:11:55.400
<v Speaker 1>then it would move to a damages stage, and she's

0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:58.400
<v Speaker 1>asked for very significant damages and don't really have a

0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 1>view on whether that valid or not. But we would

0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:02.920
<v Speaker 1>have to go back to the District Court for a

0:12:02.960 --> 0:12:06.600
<v Speaker 1>fury trial on what the proper damages for the furnitument

0:12:06.720 --> 0:12:09.479
<v Speaker 1>are in this case, you ask about what the practical

0:12:09.600 --> 0:12:13.120
<v Speaker 1>impact of these decisions uh in the art world or

0:12:14.120 --> 0:12:17.480
<v Speaker 1>the answer is real simple, it's complete confusion, um it is.

0:12:17.640 --> 0:12:22.040
<v Speaker 1>It is really hard to understand when stair use applies

0:12:22.240 --> 0:12:26.000
<v Speaker 1>and when it does not. Given these decisions, which often

0:12:26.120 --> 0:12:28.679
<v Speaker 1>seem to be based on the whim of whoever the

0:12:28.760 --> 0:12:32.640
<v Speaker 1>judge or judges reviewing the competing works have, you just

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:37.680
<v Speaker 1>as a practicing where find it very challenging to counsel

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:42.760
<v Speaker 1>artists or someone who wishes to make use of another

0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:46.360
<v Speaker 1>artist's work. It's just very hard to tell them where

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:50.800
<v Speaker 1>the line is drawn for fair use anymore. That said, again,

0:12:50.880 --> 0:12:55.000
<v Speaker 1>I repeat the Google versus Loracle case I believe does

0:12:55.080 --> 0:13:00.839
<v Speaker 1>not impact artworks specifically because Justice Brier says at the

0:13:00.880 --> 0:13:03.800
<v Speaker 1>beginning of the decision that computer programs really have to

0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:07.480
<v Speaker 1>be treated differently than literary work such as movies, books, films,

0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>and artwork. Thanks Terry. That's Terence Ross, a partner at

0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:17.760
<v Speaker 1>Captain Uten Rosenman. West Virginia has been called ground zero

0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:21.000
<v Speaker 1>of the opioid epidemic. At a hearing on Capitol Hill

0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:25.240
<v Speaker 1>two years ago, lawmakers grilled drug distributors about the millions

0:13:25.280 --> 0:13:28.959
<v Speaker 1>of opioids sent to small towns in West Virginia. Here's

0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:33.479
<v Speaker 1>former Republican Congressman Greg Harper of Mississippi. Number of opioids

0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:36.160
<v Speaker 1>ship to pharmacies and small towns in West Virginia has

0:13:36.240 --> 0:13:40.559
<v Speaker 1>been astonishing. Nearly eight hundred million opioids in total distributor

0:13:40.600 --> 0:13:43.480
<v Speaker 1>to West Virginia in just a five year period, twenty

0:13:43.520 --> 0:13:46.800
<v Speaker 1>point eight million opioids to Williamson, and nearly seventy million

0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:49.840
<v Speaker 1>opioids to a single pharmacy in Mount gay Shamrock over

0:13:49.920 --> 0:13:53.600
<v Speaker 1>a decade. A landmark trial over the opioid crisis kicked

0:13:53.640 --> 0:13:56.920
<v Speaker 1>off this week in West Virginia, as the three largest

0:13:57.040 --> 0:14:01.239
<v Speaker 1>US drug distributors are facing claims they fuel the opioid

0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 1>crisis by dumping nearly one hundred million pills into the

0:14:04.720 --> 0:14:07.959
<v Speaker 1>region over a decade. Joining me is Richard Ausness, a

0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:11.319
<v Speaker 1>professor at the University of Kentucky Law School. So the

0:14:11.400 --> 0:14:14.679
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs are using a public nuisance theory. Tell us a

0:14:14.720 --> 0:14:18.200
<v Speaker 1>little bit about that. This has been served the favorite

0:14:18.280 --> 0:14:22.120
<v Speaker 1>theory of most of the litigants in these opioid cases.

0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:24.920
<v Speaker 1>There's one, as you know, going on in California, and

0:14:25.040 --> 0:14:27.800
<v Speaker 1>I believe it's also based on public nuisance, and of

0:14:27.880 --> 0:14:32.040
<v Speaker 1>course the Oklahoma case was what public nuisance involves is

0:14:32.520 --> 0:14:36.720
<v Speaker 1>some kind of activity that interferes with a public right,

0:14:37.080 --> 0:14:39.960
<v Speaker 1>that is, a right held in common by the general public.

0:14:41.000 --> 0:14:44.320
<v Speaker 1>Is this an unusual use of the nuisance theory? Has

0:14:44.360 --> 0:14:48.480
<v Speaker 1>it mainly been used in cases involving property or pollution

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:53.240
<v Speaker 1>disputes things like that? I believe it is. The number

0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:59.000
<v Speaker 1>of governmental entities have used public nuisance in lead paint, handguns,

0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:02.520
<v Speaker 1>as best this and other products can. They've used them

0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:06.240
<v Speaker 1>in other drug cases to not involving opioids. Now, it

0:15:06.360 --> 0:15:11.360
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been overly successful, in part because, as you point out, traditionally,

0:15:11.400 --> 0:15:15.000
<v Speaker 1>at least public nuisance has involved either a violation of

0:15:15.080 --> 0:15:19.280
<v Speaker 1>statute or interference with either the plaintiffs use of his

0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:22.480
<v Speaker 1>or her land, or some activity on the land of

0:15:22.560 --> 0:15:26.000
<v Speaker 1>the defendant, and neither of those really apply in this case.

0:15:26.240 --> 0:15:30.120
<v Speaker 1>Seems to me the plaintiffs are going to call all

0:15:30.440 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 1>kinds of witnesses, expert witnesses, local leaders, people who have

0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:40.560
<v Speaker 1>been personally affected by substance abuse. What do the plaintiffs

0:15:40.640 --> 0:15:44.240
<v Speaker 1>have to prove to make out their case? Well, I

0:15:44.360 --> 0:15:47.240
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of that is just theater political theater.

0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:50.960
<v Speaker 1>The real issue, at least initially, is there a public nuisance,

0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:54.840
<v Speaker 1>and that means it interferes, at least in most states,

0:15:55.000 --> 0:15:57.720
<v Speaker 1>whether right held in common by the public. So the

0:15:57.800 --> 0:16:00.920
<v Speaker 1>fact that certain individuals have been injured is neither here

0:16:01.000 --> 0:16:04.160
<v Speaker 1>nor there in my opinion. But of course it makes

0:16:04.240 --> 0:16:06.600
<v Speaker 1>for good theater, so they're kind of drop them all

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:10.040
<v Speaker 1>out and get as much leverage as they can. Now

0:16:10.200 --> 0:16:12.320
<v Speaker 1>that doesn't work quite as well when it's a bench

0:16:12.400 --> 0:16:15.440
<v Speaker 1>trial than if it were a jury trial, but it's

0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:17.400
<v Speaker 1>not only aimed at the judge, it's aimed at the

0:16:17.480 --> 0:16:21.360
<v Speaker 1>news media and the general public the defendant. Drug distributors

0:16:21.440 --> 0:16:27.320
<v Speaker 1>are pointing in other directions for their defense illegal drugs, doctors, hospitals,

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:32.600
<v Speaker 1>drug companies. Well, I think being distributors, they're gonna say, hey,

0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:35.560
<v Speaker 1>we didn't sell drugs, at least not to the general public,

0:16:35.920 --> 0:16:39.400
<v Speaker 1>and we didn't particularly advertise them in the way that

0:16:39.560 --> 0:16:43.080
<v Speaker 1>the manufacturers did. And it's kind of a causation argument.

0:16:43.360 --> 0:16:46.240
<v Speaker 1>They're going to try to say we didn't cause the problem,

0:16:46.400 --> 0:16:50.440
<v Speaker 1>or or our contribution was minimal, that these other groups

0:16:50.480 --> 0:16:53.520
<v Speaker 1>are far more culpable than we are, And I think

0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:57.040
<v Speaker 1>that's a decent argument. Certainly. One of the problems with

0:16:57.160 --> 0:17:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the way these cases are going is they say, go

0:17:00.200 --> 0:17:03.880
<v Speaker 1>out one group when they're a whole host of potential

0:17:03.960 --> 0:17:07.400
<v Speaker 1>wrongdoers doing different things. You know, you've got the manufacturers,

0:17:07.400 --> 0:17:09.840
<v Speaker 1>you've got the distributors, and you've got the retail sellers,

0:17:09.880 --> 0:17:13.720
<v Speaker 1>and then obviously you've got criminal black market people too.

0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:16.639
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot of blame to go around, and so

0:17:16.840 --> 0:17:19.359
<v Speaker 1>by focusing on just one group, you give them the

0:17:19.480 --> 0:17:22.480
<v Speaker 1>chance to say, hey, you're going after the wrong people,

0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:26.080
<v Speaker 1>go after these other people. So far has worked. It

0:17:26.200 --> 0:17:29.159
<v Speaker 1>certainly didn't work in the Johnson and Johnson case, and

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:31.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if it will work very well in

0:17:31.640 --> 0:17:36.040
<v Speaker 1>this case either. Why didn't the plaintiffs here sue the

0:17:36.200 --> 0:17:40.840
<v Speaker 1>distributors and the drug companies in the same case. Well,

0:17:40.920 --> 0:17:43.879
<v Speaker 1>I think they did originally. But the thing about these

0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:46.919
<v Speaker 1>bell Weather trials is they're trying to sort of um

0:17:47.560 --> 0:17:51.359
<v Speaker 1>focus on on a fairly narrow issues and get a

0:17:51.520 --> 0:17:54.440
<v Speaker 1>decision that isn't cluttered up by a lot of other things.

0:17:55.320 --> 0:17:58.400
<v Speaker 1>So it makes a certain amount. I think they could

0:17:58.520 --> 0:18:01.600
<v Speaker 1>go back and see these other uh parties if they

0:18:01.680 --> 0:18:05.040
<v Speaker 1>wanted to. But the at least in theory. The purpose

0:18:05.119 --> 0:18:07.760
<v Speaker 1>of these bell Weather trials is to try to get

0:18:07.920 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 1>some sense of how strong or weak the cases are,

0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:14.600
<v Speaker 1>which gives of course both the plaintest them the defendants

0:18:14.680 --> 0:18:19.159
<v Speaker 1>some information, um, not only about whether they're liable or not,

0:18:19.440 --> 0:18:22.040
<v Speaker 1>but how much the case is worth. You know, what

0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:26.120
<v Speaker 1>the size of the awards should be in other cases.

0:18:26.840 --> 0:18:30.720
<v Speaker 1>But you know, one thing about having said that, you

0:18:30.800 --> 0:18:33.719
<v Speaker 1>know this is a significant case, which it is, uh

0:18:33.880 --> 0:18:39.120
<v Speaker 1>in it's typical to have many bell Weather cases, especially

0:18:39.160 --> 0:18:43.760
<v Speaker 1>in an area that's important. Um. I believe it was

0:18:43.840 --> 0:18:47.160
<v Speaker 1>the Box case where they had by sixteen or seventeen

0:18:47.280 --> 0:18:50.480
<v Speaker 1>bell Weather trials. Um. You know that gives you a

0:18:50.560 --> 0:18:54.040
<v Speaker 1>lot more information than just a single decision, regardless of

0:18:54.119 --> 0:18:55.879
<v Speaker 1>which way it go. So that would you say the

0:18:55.960 --> 0:18:59.880
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs have the advantage in this case, Well, I would

0:19:00.040 --> 0:19:03.000
<v Speaker 1>say just because of the optics, that the defendants are

0:19:03.080 --> 0:19:06.200
<v Speaker 1>in bad shape. Now, this, of course as a federal court,

0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:09.080
<v Speaker 1>so maybe it won't be quite as bad. But West

0:19:09.200 --> 0:19:12.800
<v Speaker 1>Virginia was notorious for being playing if oriented the state courts,

0:19:13.160 --> 0:19:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and that's probably a good reason for not having a

0:19:15.920 --> 0:19:19.800
<v Speaker 1>jury that might be influenced. But you know, the consequences

0:19:19.840 --> 0:19:22.800
<v Speaker 1>have been so terrible in West Virginia that I mean,

0:19:22.880 --> 0:19:25.919
<v Speaker 1>just everywhere you go, you've got evidence of a serious

0:19:25.960 --> 0:19:29.280
<v Speaker 1>addiction problem, and they're going to put on witness after

0:19:29.400 --> 0:19:33.560
<v Speaker 1>witness saying how terrible everything is. That's a tough argument

0:19:33.600 --> 0:19:37.400
<v Speaker 1>to overcome, which is why they have been settling these

0:19:37.520 --> 0:19:40.440
<v Speaker 1>cases on an individual basis. And I think the fact

0:19:40.560 --> 0:19:44.080
<v Speaker 1>that the Oklahoma court awarded so much money, I mean,

0:19:44.240 --> 0:19:45.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, that's a lot of money, four hundred and

0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:49.560
<v Speaker 1>seventy million dollars. The stakes are pretty high, So the

0:19:49.640 --> 0:19:53.080
<v Speaker 1>defendants are I think, up against it, and I think

0:19:53.119 --> 0:19:57.080
<v Speaker 1>their chances of winning are better on appeal than they

0:19:57.240 --> 0:20:00.200
<v Speaker 1>probably are at trial, which is not to say they're

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.800
<v Speaker 1>that good on the field. The distributors and Johnson and

0:20:03.960 --> 0:20:07.439
<v Speaker 1>Johnson the drugmaker, have proposed a global settlement. What are

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:10.480
<v Speaker 1>the chances of that, you know, Unlike the tobacco litigation,

0:20:10.560 --> 0:20:13.879
<v Speaker 1>where you had six defendants, I believe it was you know,

0:20:14.000 --> 0:20:16.239
<v Speaker 1>you could work with six defendants and they all did

0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:19.240
<v Speaker 1>the same thing. Whereas here you have the distributors making

0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:23.160
<v Speaker 1>one argument, the manufacturers making another, and the retail sellers

0:20:23.280 --> 0:20:26.160
<v Speaker 1>making yet another. So you've got a lot of parties

0:20:26.320 --> 0:20:29.600
<v Speaker 1>and their interests or not parallel. So it's tough to

0:20:29.680 --> 0:20:32.520
<v Speaker 1>get everybody in the room and come up with something

0:20:32.640 --> 0:20:36.040
<v Speaker 1>like the tobacco Settlement. Thanks Richard. That's Richard Austin's of

0:20:36.080 --> 0:20:38.720
<v Speaker 1>the University of Kentucky Law School. And that's it for

0:20:38.760 --> 0:20:41.480
<v Speaker 1>this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso

0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:42.920
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg