1
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,440 --> 00:00:13,840
Speaker 1: For the first time. On Friday, a court overrule the

3
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:18,120
Speaker 1: FDA's decade old approval of a drug. Texas Federal Judge

4
00:00:18,160 --> 00:00:21,720
Speaker 1: Matthew kis Merrick blocked the FDA's approval of the abortion

5
00:00:21,800 --> 00:00:26,319
Speaker 1: drug miffipristone, a medication approved twenty three years ago and

6
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:29,480
Speaker 1: used in more than half of abortions. Health and Human

7
00:00:29,520 --> 00:00:34,080
Speaker 1: Services Secretary Javier Bassa said the judge's decision turns the

8
00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:38,920
Speaker 1: FDA approval process upside down. One judge in one court

9
00:00:39,320 --> 00:00:43,320
Speaker 1: in one state turned upside down the FDA's approval process

10
00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:47,680
Speaker 1: for safe and effective medications. First and foremost, when you

11
00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:51,519
Speaker 1: turn upside down the entire FDA approval process, you're not

12
00:00:51,560 --> 00:00:55,200
Speaker 1: talking about just miffipristone. You're talking about every kind of drug.

13
00:00:55,240 --> 00:00:58,440
Speaker 1: You're talking about our vaccines, you're talking about insulin, You're

14
00:00:58,440 --> 00:01:01,080
Speaker 1: talking about the new alsheim drugs that may come on.

15
00:01:01,400 --> 00:01:05,800
Speaker 1: If a judge decides to substitute his preference, his personal opinion,

16
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,760
Speaker 1: for that of scientists and medical professionals, what drug is

17
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:12,640
Speaker 1: it subject to some kind of legal challenge, So we

18
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,200
Speaker 1: have to go to court, and for America's sake and

19
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 1: for women's sake, we have to we have to prevail

20
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:22,039
Speaker 1: on this. But in a legal twist, within an hour

21
00:01:22,080 --> 00:01:26,559
Speaker 1: of Cosmeric's decision, a federal judge in Washington State, Thomas Rice,

22
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:31,080
Speaker 1: issued a contrary decision, ordering the FDA to preserve the

23
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:34,840
Speaker 1: status quo and retain access to miff apristone in the

24
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,839
Speaker 1: seventeen Blue states and DC that had sued there. Johnny

25
00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:42,080
Speaker 1: Me is an expert in the area of reproductive legal rights.

26
00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:46,120
Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler a professor at UC Davis Law School. So

27
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: why is he second guessing the FDA's decision two decades ago?

28
00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:55,280
Speaker 1: Tell us what his reasoning is. Well, he has two reasons.

29
00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:58,960
Speaker 1: One is the Kumstock Act, which is the federal law

30
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:01,320
Speaker 1: Passion eighteen of any three that no one's really thought

31
00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:04,680
Speaker 1: about in a long time, actually fars the mailing of

32
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:09,600
Speaker 1: missa pristone. He's, you know, ignoring the kind of dominant

33
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 1: interpretation of the Comstock Act and any kind of constitutional

34
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:15,720
Speaker 1: concerns that reviving it would have and basically saying it's

35
00:02:15,720 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: a plain text should apply. He's also arguing that the

36
00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:25,359
Speaker 1: FDA lacked the authority to approve mitho pristone. He's sort of,

37
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:28,400
Speaker 1: I would say, kind of changing the narrative about how

38
00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:31,280
Speaker 1: the approval of missa pristone went. He's suggesting the FDA

39
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,480
Speaker 1: kind of rushed it through under this regulation called Subpart

40
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:38,239
Speaker 1: H and made what he sees as unforgivable errors, and

41
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:41,639
Speaker 1: how it viewed miso pristone, for example, by relying on

42
00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:45,680
Speaker 1: the idea that pregnancy was disease, which tess merit doesn't

43
00:02:45,680 --> 00:02:48,160
Speaker 1: think is true. If if that sounds like it's an

44
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:51,200
Speaker 1: extremely broad opinion, it's because it is. I mean, he's

45
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:53,880
Speaker 1: reaching a lot of issues and paying a lot of

46
00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 1: things that wouldn't be strictly necessary to resolve the case.

47
00:02:57,720 --> 00:03:00,280
Speaker 1: So this was not someone trying to avoid creating as

48
00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:02,920
Speaker 1: if anything kind of the opposite. How does he deal

49
00:03:02,960 --> 00:03:06,360
Speaker 1: with the fact that How does Judge Kesmer deal with

50
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:10,880
Speaker 1: the fact that miffopristone has been shown to be safer

51
00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:15,840
Speaker 1: than some common low risk prescription drugs like penicillin. The

52
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:19,799
Speaker 1: death rate for this drug is point zero zero zero

53
00:03:19,960 --> 00:03:24,440
Speaker 1: five percent. He just doesn't accept that as a fact, right,

54
00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:27,760
Speaker 1: I mean? In his analysis of standing, for example, he

55
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:31,480
Speaker 1: explains why the Alliance for Hippocratic medicine, which really doesn't

56
00:03:31,520 --> 00:03:34,520
Speaker 1: say much about treating patients who've had these injuries. There

57
00:03:34,520 --> 00:03:36,839
Speaker 1: are a few passages, but not many. He essentially says

58
00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:39,960
Speaker 1: the reasons why women are not there themselves just because

59
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 1: they've suffered so much regret and depression and suicidal ideation.

60
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:48,640
Speaker 1: He mentioned towards the end of the opinion people dying

61
00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:52,320
Speaker 1: from having taken Miffo pristone this year, So he's getting

62
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: more or less accepted the facts is presented to him

63
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:59,080
Speaker 1: by the Alliance for Hyppocratic Medicine, even if those are not,

64
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:02,800
Speaker 1: you know, the facts that scientists accept the American Medical

65
00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:06,640
Speaker 1: Association accepts, as the American College of Centersins and Gynecologist success.

66
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 1: He's sort of living in a different universe when it

67
00:04:09,480 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: comes to how myth of us don't actually work. Is

68
00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: he also using the language of anti abortion activists, like

69
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:21,400
Speaker 1: talking about the fetus as an unborn human. Yeah, he is.

70
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 1: He cites, I mean the studies I mentioned about post

71
00:04:24,200 --> 00:04:26,920
Speaker 1: abortion regret were done by an anti abortion activist named

72
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:31,000
Speaker 1: David Reardon. He refers to doctors to perform abortions as abortionist.

73
00:04:31,160 --> 00:04:33,920
Speaker 1: He refers to people who's kind aborships as post abortive.

74
00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 1: He calls fetus's unborn children or unborn humans. He picks

75
00:04:38,600 --> 00:04:40,360
Speaker 1: up on the idea that's the only kind of benefits

76
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:43,600
Speaker 1: of abortion access are sort of eugenic. He describes, you know,

77
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,840
Speaker 1: the effort to create uber mentioned with his terms. So

78
00:04:47,120 --> 00:04:50,640
Speaker 1: there's a lot of rhetoric that draws directly from anti

79
00:04:50,640 --> 00:04:56,240
Speaker 1: abortion materials. Also, on Friday, within an hour of this decision,

80
00:04:56,800 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 1: federal Judge Thomas Rice in Why Shehington, issued a preliminary

81
00:05:01,920 --> 00:05:05,719
Speaker 1: order blocking the FDA from making any changes to the

82
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:09,159
Speaker 1: current availability of mif A press Stone. I take it

83
00:05:09,240 --> 00:05:13,040
Speaker 1: this wasn't just coincidence. No, no, probably not. I mean,

84
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:15,839
Speaker 1: obviously I haven't you know, spoken to Judge Rice. But

85
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:17,839
Speaker 1: I take it that it was not a coincidence, and

86
00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:20,560
Speaker 1: that this was designed to force the appellate courts to

87
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:23,719
Speaker 1: give some clarity of sooner other than later, to the

88
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: SBA about what it should be doing. Judge Rice's ruling

89
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,719
Speaker 1: applies to the seventeen states that sued. So what's the

90
00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:35,920
Speaker 1: situation in those states with this conflicting ruling? I mean,

91
00:05:35,920 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 1: which judges order applies? Well, I mean the answer is,

92
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:42,400
Speaker 1: you know, arguably both, right, So I mean I think

93
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:44,680
Speaker 1: that the question really is how through the FBA do

94
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:47,799
Speaker 1: you try to square that circle? And best answer seems

95
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:50,760
Speaker 1: to be that the FDA, using its discretion as to

96
00:05:50,839 --> 00:05:54,920
Speaker 1: how to enforce, you know, orders regarding drugs that are unapproved,

97
00:05:54,920 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 1: it should just leave the status quo alone until there's

98
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:01,760
Speaker 1: clarity prominent felt because you know, even if a drug

99
00:06:01,839 --> 00:06:05,159
Speaker 1: is unapproved, the FDA has some discretion about how vigorously

100
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 1: it pursues people who are dispensing, prescribing it, etc. And

101
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:12,200
Speaker 1: given that the FDA here is under directly deplipting orders,

102
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:14,360
Speaker 1: it would be weird for the FBA to take an

103
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 1: aggressive position in enforcing Judge Chestmeric's order. And I mean,

104
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:21,400
Speaker 1: obviously just it's worth saying to Judge Chestmeric's order has

105
00:06:21,440 --> 00:06:24,320
Speaker 1: been kind of paused for seven days pending an appeal,

106
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:26,479
Speaker 1: So at the moment that you even that isn't really

107
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:28,960
Speaker 1: an issue. But when it becomes on, we'd expect to

108
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:32,479
Speaker 1: see the FBA argue that the best way it can

109
00:06:32,600 --> 00:06:36,239
Speaker 1: follow both orders is to wait to do anything until

110
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:39,120
Speaker 1: it gets clarity from the US Supreme Court. So the

111
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: Biden administration is going to ask the Fifth Circuit for

112
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:46,280
Speaker 1: an emergency stay in your opinion. How likely is it

113
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:49,280
Speaker 1: that they'll get that? It's hard to stay right. I mean,

114
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:52,560
Speaker 1: we know that the Fifth Circuit is very conservative, and

115
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:56,600
Speaker 1: I think the question really is whether there's any bridge

116
00:06:56,640 --> 00:06:59,720
Speaker 1: too far for the Fifth Circuit or the US Supreme Court.

117
00:07:00,080 --> 00:07:03,679
Speaker 1: I think, you know, Chessmeric's ruling in several steps beyond

118
00:07:04,120 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 1: the decision to reverse Rovway. For example, the Court and

119
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:10,680
Speaker 1: Doobs said, you know, emphatically over and over again that

120
00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:13,600
Speaker 1: this was about giving the aborshion issue back to the people.

121
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 1: And of course Judge Chessmeric's ruling is about taking the

122
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:19,200
Speaker 1: a worshion issue away from the people. So I think

123
00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 1: also there's been some irony and the fact that there's

124
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:25,480
Speaker 1: so much second guessing of scientific authority by Judge Kasmeric

125
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 1: when many conservatives just event decades criticizing the Rowe Court

126
00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:32,560
Speaker 1: for converting, you know, judges into medical review boards. So

127
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:35,400
Speaker 1: there's some chance that the Fifth Circuit or the US

128
00:07:35,440 --> 00:07:38,720
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will see this as different from what's come before,

129
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:41,240
Speaker 1: or too far too fast. But I think again, when

130
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 1: you're looking at who's on the Fifth Circuit, who's on

131
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, you certainly can't rule out the

132
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 1: possibility that they'll sign off on what Chests America is doing,

133
00:07:48,720 --> 00:07:52,760
Speaker 1: or at least significant parts of it. An emergency petition

134
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,680
Speaker 1: from the Fifth Circuit would initially go to Justice Samuel Alito,

135
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:01,120
Speaker 1: who wrote the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Is he

136
00:08:01,200 --> 00:08:04,000
Speaker 1: likely to decide that himself will refer to the whole Court?

137
00:08:04,320 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 1: I would hope you would refer to the full Court,

138
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:10,000
Speaker 1: given that you know, you have clashing district court rulings

139
00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:14,080
Speaker 1: on matters of national import Again, you know this Supreme

140
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:16,680
Speaker 1: Court has not behaved like all the others before it.

141
00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:18,880
Speaker 1: But again, I mean I would hope that this issue

142
00:08:18,880 --> 00:08:22,280
Speaker 1: would be of national enough significance that Justice Alito would

143
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: refer it to the Full Court. The thing about this

144
00:08:25,640 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: ruling is it's not just a bad abortion, but it

145
00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:34,280
Speaker 1: undermines the authority of the FDA. It puts pharmaceutical companies

146
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:38,480
Speaker 1: in a bad situation. So is it likely to get

147
00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,280
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court? Well, I mean, we can't live

148
00:08:41,280 --> 00:08:43,080
Speaker 1: in a world where the SBA is told to do

149
00:08:43,280 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 1: contradictory things on a drug of national significance in a

150
00:08:46,360 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 1: major cultural war issue that is untenable, and so sooner

151
00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:53,360
Speaker 1: or later, the US Supreme Court is going to have

152
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:57,120
Speaker 1: to intervene to just settle what the FDA is supposed

153
00:08:57,120 --> 00:09:00,440
Speaker 1: to do. We've talked before, and you've mentioned and now

154
00:09:00,520 --> 00:09:04,439
Speaker 1: how conservative this court is. If they follow what they

155
00:09:04,520 --> 00:09:07,800
Speaker 1: said in Dabbs, I'd take it they would reverse Judge

156
00:09:07,880 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: kiz Americ. But we never know if they're going to

157
00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:14,280
Speaker 1: follow what they say or not anymore rights, And I

158
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 1: think in some ways that's why the Alliance Defending Freedom

159
00:09:17,880 --> 00:09:21,959
Speaker 1: filed this too, right, because the possibilities that are imaginable

160
00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 1: in the US Supreme Court are unimaginable in democratic politics. Right.

161
00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:27,880
Speaker 1: I mean, if you were asking, could you achieve a

162
00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:31,199
Speaker 1: result like this through a statute passed by Congress, assuming

163
00:09:31,200 --> 00:09:33,359
Speaker 1: he's got a Republican in the White House and Republicans

164
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:36,280
Speaker 1: controlling Congress, the answer is no. Right that it's not

165
00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:39,800
Speaker 1: inconceivable that the US Supreme Court would sign off on,

166
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:44,959
Speaker 1: you know, something that wouldn't be possible through majority rules. Mary,

167
00:09:44,960 --> 00:09:48,240
Speaker 1: you spoke about irony before, and I'd like you to

168
00:09:48,360 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 1: comment on the irony that in the Dabs decision, which

169
00:09:53,120 --> 00:09:58,439
Speaker 1: overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the majority indicated that

170
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:01,319
Speaker 1: this would merely rich are on the issue of abortion

171
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:05,560
Speaker 1: to the people and to the democratic process, and basically

172
00:10:05,559 --> 00:10:08,960
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to deal with anymore. I mean, obviously

173
00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:11,840
Speaker 1: they actually believe that that was naive, and all the

174
00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:15,280
Speaker 1: more so, profess any student of history would know that

175
00:10:15,440 --> 00:10:20,360
Speaker 1: neither supporters of abortion rights nor opponents of abortion have

176
00:10:20,480 --> 00:10:23,920
Speaker 1: been content with letting voters decide, even if that would

177
00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:25,920
Speaker 1: be the more stable thing to do. The anti abortion

178
00:10:25,960 --> 00:10:29,280
Speaker 1: movements Tatmeric alludes to in his opinion, at one point

179
00:10:30,000 --> 00:10:33,040
Speaker 1: has been fighting for fetal personhood, which will make abortion

180
00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:36,400
Speaker 1: unconstitutional and illegal nationwide. And if they can't achieve that,

181
00:10:36,400 --> 00:10:38,080
Speaker 1: they're going to get as close to it as they can.

182
00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:41,439
Speaker 1: And abortion rights supporters, obviously, as Judge rights is ruling

183
00:10:41,800 --> 00:10:44,080
Speaker 1: makes clearer not going to be content with gods either.

184
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,319
Speaker 1: I think it's even more clear that the anti abortion

185
00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:49,120
Speaker 1: movement is going to rely on the federal courts again

186
00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:52,679
Speaker 1: because they've been losing so much, whether it's invalid initiatives

187
00:10:52,760 --> 00:10:55,000
Speaker 1: or in elections, and so if they don't have the

188
00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:56,719
Speaker 1: hearts and minds of voters, they're going to need to

189
00:10:56,760 --> 00:10:59,360
Speaker 1: rely on the federal courts. So this is a reminder

190
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:02,640
Speaker 1: that either the court was naive or dishonest and telling

191
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:04,959
Speaker 1: us that the federal courts should be out of the

192
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:08,440
Speaker 1: abortion business. After dogs. This is just a preliminary stage.

193
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:11,280
Speaker 1: So even after this stage, it would go back to

194
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:15,920
Speaker 1: trial before Kazmeric and Judge Rice, right exactly, and then

195
00:11:15,920 --> 00:11:17,959
Speaker 1: it would kind of go back up through the courts again.

196
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think part of the reason everyone

197
00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:22,600
Speaker 1: has pained so much attention at this stage is, as

198
00:11:22,800 --> 00:11:25,080
Speaker 1: was obviously the case in both Judge Rice and Judge

199
00:11:25,160 --> 00:11:27,520
Speaker 1: Kasmeric's rulings, we had a pretty good preview of what

200
00:11:27,559 --> 00:11:30,120
Speaker 1: they're going to hold after the trial. I mean, I

201
00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 1: don't expect any major surprises coming after the trial, and

202
00:11:33,480 --> 00:11:35,520
Speaker 1: the same thing will be true in the Supreme Court. Ways.

203
00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:38,160
Speaker 1: In at these early preliminary stages, we should have a

204
00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:40,120
Speaker 1: pretty good sense of where they might be going. I mean,

205
00:11:40,120 --> 00:11:42,160
Speaker 1: it doesn't always work that way, but often we get

206
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:46,200
Speaker 1: pretty strong signals. Some abortion providers have said that if

207
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:51,720
Speaker 1: FIfF A press Stone is unavailable, they'd switch to missoprostill

208
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,559
Speaker 1: only regiment. So how is that different from FIfF A

209
00:11:56,640 --> 00:11:58,880
Speaker 1: press Stone. Well, there are a couple of things to

210
00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:00,960
Speaker 1: note their right. So on the hand rate that mister

211
00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:04,760
Speaker 1: prostill only abortion has pretty proven it's not as effective,

212
00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:07,800
Speaker 1: at least at the moment as mister Prestone and mister Prostell,

213
00:12:07,840 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 1: which is why together, which is why it's not the

214
00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:13,960
Speaker 1: standard of scare. It's also worth emphasizing even though it's

215
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:17,240
Speaker 1: safe and relatively effective, there's no guarantee that it'll be

216
00:12:17,280 --> 00:12:19,520
Speaker 1: available in the long term either. Because one of Judge

217
00:12:19,559 --> 00:12:22,680
Speaker 1: Casmeric's rulings centered on the Comstock Act, and as I mentioned,

218
00:12:23,160 --> 00:12:26,920
Speaker 1: if you interpret the Comstock Act as broadly as Kasmeric does,

219
00:12:27,600 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: it would apply to mister Prosteal too. I mean, that

220
00:12:29,840 --> 00:12:33,480
Speaker 1: wasn't the issue before Judge Kasmeric in this case, but

221
00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 1: it doesn't take a lot to recognize that a subsequent

222
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:40,720
Speaker 1: challenge before Judge Kasmeric based on mister Crostol or really

223
00:12:40,760 --> 00:12:43,320
Speaker 1: any drug intendat or adapted for abortion, could come out

224
00:12:43,360 --> 00:12:46,520
Speaker 1: the same way. So there's no guarantee that if that's

225
00:12:46,520 --> 00:12:48,920
Speaker 1: the way she sees the Comstock Act, and if other

226
00:12:49,040 --> 00:12:52,560
Speaker 1: conservative ports, including the US Supreme Court degree, mister Prosteal

227
00:12:52,559 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: could be in the crossairs too. So this is going

228
00:12:55,559 --> 00:12:59,720
Speaker 1: forward despite the fact that we've seen in many states

229
00:12:59,760 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 1: that voters have not supported anti abortion agendas. Yeah, absolutely,

230
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:09,280
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a clear and ironic conclusion

231
00:13:09,360 --> 00:13:12,440
Speaker 1: that's emerging in the post DODS era, which is that

232
00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:16,520
Speaker 1: essentially anti abortion groups who have spent years railing against

233
00:13:16,600 --> 00:13:21,800
Speaker 1: judicial activism and judicial policymaking are relying on judicial activism

234
00:13:21,800 --> 00:13:25,199
Speaker 1: and judicial policy making because when voters are asked directly

235
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: about these questions, they simply don't want the sweeping abortion

236
00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:32,000
Speaker 1: bands that the anti abortion movement commands. Right, even if

237
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:34,880
Speaker 1: voters may be okay with abortion restrictions, they're not prepared

238
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:37,160
Speaker 1: to go nearly as far as the anti worshion movement wants,

239
00:13:37,200 --> 00:13:39,400
Speaker 1: which means the only way you can get to the

240
00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:42,319
Speaker 1: kind of outcome they're looking for to rely on judges

241
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:46,200
Speaker 1: like as Merit, who you know, are not reflecting where

242
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:52,880
Speaker 1: American voters are. Would this prevent pharmaceutical companies from making

243
00:13:53,400 --> 00:13:57,800
Speaker 1: the pill? Well, so I would make it unnailable, right,

244
00:13:57,840 --> 00:14:00,480
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel necessarily with it would mean that it's

245
00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:04,959
Speaker 1: unapproved in the United States, And so it would mean

246
00:14:05,040 --> 00:14:08,480
Speaker 1: that in theory, if you're continuing to dispense it or

247
00:14:08,559 --> 00:14:11,920
Speaker 1: distribute it, that you could be in legal jeopardy. But again,

248
00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 1: then how much the FBA actually enforced that issue, right,

249
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:18,440
Speaker 1: how much the SPA used its discretion to go after

250
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:21,160
Speaker 1: violators would be up to the f PA, and we

251
00:14:21,160 --> 00:14:23,480
Speaker 1: would expect for the Biden administration that not to be

252
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:27,640
Speaker 1: a priority. And on the Comstock point, it would make

253
00:14:27,640 --> 00:14:31,720
Speaker 1: it illegal to nail it, which would first affect manufacturers

254
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:34,800
Speaker 1: and distributors in the sense that any time they actually

255
00:14:35,560 --> 00:14:38,440
Speaker 1: put it in the mail, whether through the US Postal

256
00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:41,680
Speaker 1: Service or FedEx or UPS or whatever, they could be

257
00:14:41,760 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 1: violating the federal law. Again, I think what you're likely

258
00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:46,120
Speaker 1: to see if it comes to that as the Biden

259
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:49,600
Speaker 1: administration essentially signaling, you know, we're not going to use

260
00:14:49,760 --> 00:14:52,680
Speaker 1: whether BOJ or FBA, We're not going to treat this

261
00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:54,640
Speaker 1: as a priority. We're going to kind of look the

262
00:14:54,680 --> 00:14:58,320
Speaker 1: other way. But whether you know, you see drug manufacturers

263
00:14:58,320 --> 00:15:03,200
Speaker 1: and doctors feeling comfortable enough to continue making mitra crestone

264
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:07,120
Speaker 1: available on the strength of that kind of guarantee, I

265
00:15:07,120 --> 00:15:10,080
Speaker 1: think it's an open question. Yeah, I was just wondering if,

266
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:14,080
Speaker 1: for example, worst comes to words that there could be

267
00:15:14,120 --> 00:15:17,280
Speaker 1: an underground network and people could get the drug from

268
00:15:17,320 --> 00:15:20,200
Speaker 1: outside the country from Canada. Yeah, I mean we would

269
00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:23,760
Speaker 1: expect to see that. I mean, there's definitely going to

270
00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:27,200
Speaker 1: be some of that. I think because we've already seen,

271
00:15:27,240 --> 00:15:30,280
Speaker 1: for example, women on the Web and aid Access groups

272
00:15:30,320 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 1: like that that provide medication access from Europe, and so

273
00:15:35,040 --> 00:15:38,960
Speaker 1: far that would be under the FDA's personal Importation policy.

274
00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:41,600
Speaker 1: And while in theory that's violating that policy, the FDA

275
00:15:41,640 --> 00:15:45,680
Speaker 1: has taken a kind of again non aggressive approach to

276
00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:49,720
Speaker 1: dealing with that. And there's no real realistical way to

277
00:15:49,800 --> 00:15:53,520
Speaker 1: prosecute groups like aid Access simply because they're not going

278
00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 1: to be extradited from countries that approve of abortion as

279
00:15:57,360 --> 00:16:01,200
Speaker 1: you know, protected rights. As there have been a situation before.

280
00:16:01,240 --> 00:16:06,320
Speaker 1: I mean this sort of highlights that one judge in Amarillo,

281
00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:09,960
Speaker 1: Texas can make a ruling that affects the whole country,

282
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:13,520
Speaker 1: and then another judge now in Washington can make a

283
00:16:13,600 --> 00:16:17,040
Speaker 1: ruling that affects maybe half the country. Has this happened before,

284
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:22,080
Speaker 1: dueling injunctions like this, I mean, they've definitely seen circuit splits.

285
00:16:22,120 --> 00:16:25,080
Speaker 1: I think what the newer wrinkle here is the spread

286
00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:30,080
Speaker 1: of these nationwide injunctions, and I think the polarization of

287
00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:32,360
Speaker 1: the courts. And it's not a coincidence that we have

288
00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:36,960
Speaker 1: an Obama nominee and a Trump nominee here. So the

289
00:16:37,040 --> 00:16:40,440
Speaker 1: spread of nationwide injunctions, together with the kind of widening

290
00:16:40,480 --> 00:16:44,200
Speaker 1: gap between the kinds of ruling judges or ordering has

291
00:16:44,240 --> 00:16:45,600
Speaker 1: made this kind of it. I mean, the fact that

292
00:16:45,640 --> 00:16:47,920
Speaker 1: you have these two rulings coming out at the same

293
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: time on the same day, giving the FDA directly opposing orders,

294
00:16:52,360 --> 00:16:54,680
Speaker 1: as far as I know, was unprecedented, even if we've

295
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:58,440
Speaker 1: seen you know, splits and divides between supports and circuits

296
00:16:58,480 --> 00:17:02,200
Speaker 1: in the past. The ruling in Washington, I mean, there's

297
00:17:02,240 --> 00:17:04,919
Speaker 1: no group that will appeal that right because it was

298
00:17:05,000 --> 00:17:09,040
Speaker 1: the FDA and the and the Democratic States. Yeah, I

299
00:17:09,040 --> 00:17:11,359
Speaker 1: mean they may see. You know, the only wrinkle there,

300
00:17:11,680 --> 00:17:17,240
Speaker 1: Judge Ice didn't go as far as the Liberal States wanted.

301
00:17:17,880 --> 00:17:22,639
Speaker 1: They had argued that the FDA FA rules actually preemptied

302
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:27,399
Speaker 1: contradictory state prohibitions on abortionition meditation. So in theory they

303
00:17:27,480 --> 00:17:30,680
Speaker 1: might appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which

304
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:35,159
Speaker 1: is quite progressive, and seek more. But yeah, it's not

305
00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:37,800
Speaker 1: as clear who's going to do what in that situation,

306
00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:41,000
Speaker 1: because you know, the FDA is less supposed to what's

307
00:17:41,040 --> 00:17:44,000
Speaker 1: going on thus far in that case obviously than it

308
00:17:44,000 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: would be in their TuS Meer's case. Thanks, So much

309
00:17:46,280 --> 00:17:49,800
Speaker 1: for letting your expertise on this subject. That's Professor Mary

310
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:55,520
Speaker 1: Ziegler of UC Davis Law School, California. Federal jury has

311
00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 1: awarded three point two million dollars to former Tesla contractor

312
00:18:00,080 --> 00:18:03,840
Speaker 1: O and Diaz in a long running racial discrimination case.

313
00:18:04,320 --> 00:18:08,240
Speaker 1: But that's ninety eight percent less than the staggering one

314
00:18:08,280 --> 00:18:12,000
Speaker 1: hundred thirty seven million dollars a different jury awarded to

315
00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 1: Daz two years ago. That was one of the highest

316
00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:19,120
Speaker 1: verdicts ever for someone suing over discrimination in the US.

317
00:18:19,160 --> 00:18:21,960
Speaker 1: This sets the stage for a post trial battle over

318
00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:25,160
Speaker 1: the award. Joining me is Anthony on CD, co chair

319
00:18:25,200 --> 00:18:29,520
Speaker 1: of Proscouer Rose's Labor and Employment law department. Tony start

320
00:18:29,560 --> 00:18:33,440
Speaker 1: by telling us about the original trial and original verdict.

321
00:18:34,119 --> 00:18:38,000
Speaker 1: This case ended up going to trial and verdict in

322
00:18:38,080 --> 00:18:42,000
Speaker 1: October of twenty twenty one, and that's when the original

323
00:18:42,160 --> 00:18:45,280
Speaker 1: jury verdict came out, and it was in the rather

324
00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:48,920
Speaker 1: eye popping amount of one hundred and thirty seven million

325
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:54,040
Speaker 1: dollars composed of six point nine million dollars in emotional

326
00:18:54,040 --> 00:18:57,359
Speaker 1: distress damages and one hundred and thirty million dollars in

327
00:18:57,480 --> 00:19:01,399
Speaker 1: punitive damages. What mister p as alleged and was able

328
00:19:01,400 --> 00:19:04,840
Speaker 1: to prove at trial, was that he was subjected to

329
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:08,520
Speaker 1: racial harassment in the workplace. He was a very short

330
00:19:08,600 --> 00:19:10,639
Speaker 1: term employee, worked there for less than a year. He

331
00:19:10,760 --> 00:19:13,640
Speaker 1: worked as an elevator operator at Tesla in its Fremont,

332
00:19:14,080 --> 00:19:17,360
Speaker 1: California plant. I'm not sure what an elevator operator even

333
00:19:17,440 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 1: is in the twenty first century, especially at a company

334
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:21,800
Speaker 1: such as Tesla, but apparently that was the job he

335
00:19:21,840 --> 00:19:25,639
Speaker 1: had there, and the jury obviously was very sympathetic to

336
00:19:25,760 --> 00:19:29,640
Speaker 1: his situation and determined that he did suffer emotional distress

337
00:19:29,840 --> 00:19:34,520
Speaker 1: and that punitive damages were in order. Any idea where

338
00:19:34,520 --> 00:19:39,120
Speaker 1: this six point nine million dollars in emotional distress comes from?

339
00:19:39,600 --> 00:19:42,480
Speaker 1: Where they came up with that number? Sure? So the

340
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:45,600
Speaker 1: answer is that oftentimes what a jury will do, and

341
00:19:45,640 --> 00:19:48,000
Speaker 1: I suspect that's what happened in this case. If they

342
00:19:48,040 --> 00:19:52,440
Speaker 1: are upset enough about the circumstances that occurred in the workplace,

343
00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:55,320
Speaker 1: and for whatever reason they believe that this employee has

344
00:19:55,359 --> 00:19:59,760
Speaker 1: been wrongly treated or obviously in this case, significantly wrongly treated,

345
00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:04,919
Speaker 1: what will creep into the emotional distress damages award is

346
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:08,520
Speaker 1: a punitive element, meaning that the jury was only asked

347
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:10,359
Speaker 1: in that phase of the trial because there are different

348
00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:13,840
Speaker 1: phases of the trial compensatory damages versus punitive damages, and

349
00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:17,439
Speaker 1: the compensatory damages phase of the trial. The jury was

350
00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:22,200
Speaker 1: apparently so upset with what had occurred that although they

351
00:20:22,240 --> 00:20:25,840
Speaker 1: were only supposed to be focusing on making mister Diaz

352
00:20:26,000 --> 00:20:30,080
Speaker 1: whole in the form of emotional distress damages, I believe

353
00:20:30,080 --> 00:20:33,240
Speaker 1: what happened is that at that stage of the proceedings,

354
00:20:33,280 --> 00:20:36,439
Speaker 1: when they were only supposed to be focusing on making

355
00:20:36,480 --> 00:20:41,159
Speaker 1: mister Diaz whole in terms of awarding him damages for

356
00:20:41,200 --> 00:20:46,440
Speaker 1: emotional distress, I suspect what crept in was an element

357
00:20:46,480 --> 00:20:52,320
Speaker 1: of punitive reprisal essentially by the jury against Tesla. That's

358
00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:55,360
Speaker 1: not supposed to happen, but it's not unusual for that

359
00:20:55,440 --> 00:20:57,679
Speaker 1: to happen, and I think that's what happened with the

360
00:20:57,720 --> 00:21:00,680
Speaker 1: six point nine million dollar award that acurred with respect

361
00:21:00,720 --> 00:21:04,240
Speaker 1: emotional distress damages. In California, where this jury verdict occurred,

362
00:21:04,280 --> 00:21:07,520
Speaker 1: there aren't really any guide posts for a jury to

363
00:21:07,640 --> 00:21:11,960
Speaker 1: determine what are the appropriate amount of emotional distress damages. Indeed,

364
00:21:12,240 --> 00:21:16,360
Speaker 1: oftentimes it's what the plaintiffs lawyer asks for the plaintiff

365
00:21:16,400 --> 00:21:19,160
Speaker 1: lawyer oftentimes will put a number out there and tell

366
00:21:19,200 --> 00:21:21,600
Speaker 1: the jury that he or she thinks that's an appropriate

367
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 1: amount of emotional distress damages. But the jury instructions in

368
00:21:26,040 --> 00:21:30,679
Speaker 1: California are woefully deficient in telling juries what they should

369
00:21:30,760 --> 00:21:34,480
Speaker 1: evaluate and how they should determine the amount of emotional

370
00:21:34,480 --> 00:21:37,680
Speaker 1: distress damages. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem

371
00:21:38,400 --> 00:21:41,199
Speaker 1: where the employer basically is at the mercy of the

372
00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:43,600
Speaker 1: plaintiff lawyer in terms of what number he or she

373
00:21:44,160 --> 00:21:46,840
Speaker 1: throws out to the jury or whatever the jury may

374
00:21:46,840 --> 00:21:49,240
Speaker 1: come up with, and there's no real standardized way of

375
00:21:49,280 --> 00:21:52,480
Speaker 1: figuring that out. Another problem with the jury instructions in California,

376
00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:55,600
Speaker 1: by the way, are they asked the jury to assess

377
00:21:55,720 --> 00:22:00,320
Speaker 1: and award past emotional distress damages up through and including

378
00:22:00,400 --> 00:22:04,280
Speaker 1: the time of the trial, and then future emotional distress damages.

379
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:07,240
Speaker 1: I think that second element, at the very least future

380
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:10,840
Speaker 1: emotional distress damages is nothing but purely asking the jury

381
00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:14,280
Speaker 1: to speculate about something. And so what often happens is

382
00:22:14,280 --> 00:22:16,960
Speaker 1: the jury comes up with a very large number and

383
00:22:16,960 --> 00:22:19,919
Speaker 1: they give half for the past emotional distress damages, and

384
00:22:19,960 --> 00:22:22,840
Speaker 1: they give half for the future emotional distress damages. And

385
00:22:23,080 --> 00:22:25,720
Speaker 1: all of this is just funny money, made up numbers

386
00:22:25,760 --> 00:22:29,520
Speaker 1: that aren't really targeted or in any way correlated to

387
00:22:29,560 --> 00:22:33,080
Speaker 1: anything in reality. So the trial judge gave the plaintiff

388
00:22:33,119 --> 00:22:36,320
Speaker 1: here a tough choice. Tell us about it. Sure. So

389
00:22:36,520 --> 00:22:39,280
Speaker 1: what happened after the verdict came out in October of

390
00:22:39,320 --> 00:22:43,320
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, TESLA moved the Proud Court judge to

391
00:22:43,480 --> 00:22:47,200
Speaker 1: reduce the one hundred and thirty seven million dollar verdict,

392
00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:52,040
Speaker 1: which was completely in anticipated that clearly the judge would

393
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:55,600
Speaker 1: seek to do something with that verdict because we've already

394
00:22:55,600 --> 00:22:59,280
Speaker 1: talked about how large the compenstory damages verdict was, that is,

395
00:22:59,320 --> 00:23:01,600
Speaker 1: the emotional dis dress damages, But on top of that,

396
00:23:01,640 --> 00:23:03,879
Speaker 1: there was a one hundred and thirty million dollars punitive

397
00:23:03,960 --> 00:23:07,840
Speaker 1: damages award. And the problem with that part of the

398
00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:10,520
Speaker 1: verdict from October of twenty twenty one is that the

399
00:23:10,600 --> 00:23:16,439
Speaker 1: punitive damages were approximately nineteen times the amount of the

400
00:23:16,480 --> 00:23:20,879
Speaker 1: compensatory damages. And once that happens, then the verdict is

401
00:23:20,920 --> 00:23:25,760
Speaker 1: imperiled because there are constitutional limits that have been defined

402
00:23:25,800 --> 00:23:28,440
Speaker 1: by the United States Supreme Court and have been accepted

403
00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:30,720
Speaker 1: by courts all around the country. They really don't have

404
00:23:30,760 --> 00:23:34,600
Speaker 1: a choice. That a punitive damage award can only be

405
00:23:35,240 --> 00:23:39,920
Speaker 1: at the very highest amount, perhaps nine times the amount

406
00:23:40,040 --> 00:23:43,960
Speaker 1: of compensatory damages, and so in this case, the original

407
00:23:44,040 --> 00:23:49,240
Speaker 1: verdict was nineteen times the amount of the compensatory damages award,

408
00:23:49,280 --> 00:23:51,800
Speaker 1: so that had to be reduced. What the judge did

409
00:23:51,880 --> 00:23:56,800
Speaker 1: in April of twenty twenty two was to reduce both

410
00:23:56,880 --> 00:24:00,560
Speaker 1: the emotional distress damages and the punitive damage. And what

411
00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:03,040
Speaker 1: the judge did, in an attempt to fix this verdict

412
00:24:03,600 --> 00:24:06,400
Speaker 1: was reduced the emotional distress damages from six point nine

413
00:24:06,400 --> 00:24:10,359
Speaker 1: million dollars to one point five million dollars, and then

414
00:24:10,680 --> 00:24:13,760
Speaker 1: he multiplied that one point five times nine to get

415
00:24:13,800 --> 00:24:16,719
Speaker 1: punitive damages in the amount of thirteen point five million,

416
00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:20,879
Speaker 1: for a total verdict of fifteen million dollars. This was

417
00:24:21,000 --> 00:24:23,199
Speaker 1: the best the judge, I think, thought he could do.

418
00:24:23,280 --> 00:24:26,800
Speaker 1: He was also obviously trying to preserve a significant amount

419
00:24:26,920 --> 00:24:30,719
Speaker 1: of punitive damages, which he did by although still reducing

420
00:24:30,760 --> 00:24:33,919
Speaker 1: it obviously significantly from one hundred and thirty million dollars,

421
00:24:33,960 --> 00:24:37,919
Speaker 1: he kept it within that constitutional boundary, meaning that the

422
00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:41,000
Speaker 1: thirteen point five million dollars was within a single digit

423
00:24:41,560 --> 00:24:44,880
Speaker 1: multiple of the one point five But as you can see,

424
00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:46,639
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with these kinds of numbers, these are

425
00:24:46,680 --> 00:24:51,000
Speaker 1: just literally numbers pulled from nowhere, and these are huge, huge,

426
00:24:51,080 --> 00:24:54,960
Speaker 1: huge amounts of money to be considered to be awarded

427
00:24:54,960 --> 00:24:58,000
Speaker 1: against an employer in a situation like this, not to

428
00:24:58,000 --> 00:25:01,119
Speaker 1: mention the fact that the predictability is completely ridiculous if

429
00:25:01,160 --> 00:25:03,520
Speaker 1: you just look at the difference between the October twenty

430
00:25:03,520 --> 00:25:06,800
Speaker 1: one verdict of one hundred and thirty seven million dollars

431
00:25:06,920 --> 00:25:10,320
Speaker 1: and then the corrected verdict by the judge to fifteen

432
00:25:10,359 --> 00:25:14,760
Speaker 1: million dollars. So that swing itself is absolutely breathtaking and huge.

433
00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:19,000
Speaker 1: And then we have another trial that takes place on

434
00:25:19,080 --> 00:25:21,639
Speaker 1: the damages. The reason we had another trial on the

435
00:25:21,720 --> 00:25:26,160
Speaker 1: damages is because the judge offered mister Diaz the opportunity

436
00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:30,119
Speaker 1: to accept that reduced verdict of fifteen million dollars that

437
00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:34,639
Speaker 1: the judge had patched together, and mister Diaz declined it.

438
00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:37,879
Speaker 1: He decided not to accept the fifteen million dollars and

439
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:42,040
Speaker 1: the alternative indoor number two, was to have another trial

440
00:25:42,560 --> 00:25:45,440
Speaker 1: on damages alone. Now it wasn't another trial on the

441
00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:48,439
Speaker 1: underlying case as to whether he was or was not

442
00:25:48,560 --> 00:25:51,480
Speaker 1: harass that was established and the jury was told that

443
00:25:51,480 --> 00:25:54,960
Speaker 1: that was already established. But importantly they didn't therefore hear

444
00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:59,200
Speaker 1: all the evidence. This next jury that just issued it's

445
00:26:00,000 --> 00:26:03,640
Speaker 1: predict on the third of April of this year, only

446
00:26:03,720 --> 00:26:07,000
Speaker 1: heard evidence about damages and did not hear any of

447
00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:11,359
Speaker 1: the evidence concerning the underlying liability. And I think that

448
00:26:11,480 --> 00:26:14,520
Speaker 1: may not be the best outcome for an employee in

449
00:26:14,560 --> 00:26:17,480
Speaker 1: a situation like this, because the jury, obviously, with the

450
00:26:17,520 --> 00:26:20,119
Speaker 1: first verdict for the first trial, was quite riled up,

451
00:26:20,160 --> 00:26:22,119
Speaker 1: and they were I'm sure mostly riled up by what

452
00:26:22,200 --> 00:26:25,600
Speaker 1: they heard in the liability phase of the case. This

453
00:26:25,720 --> 00:26:28,040
Speaker 1: second jury never heard all of that. They were just

454
00:26:28,240 --> 00:26:31,160
Speaker 1: told to assume that there was harassment, and now their

455
00:26:31,240 --> 00:26:34,680
Speaker 1: job was to figure out what was the basis for

456
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: a damages award. And what this new jury did last

457
00:26:38,320 --> 00:26:44,639
Speaker 1: week was further reduced the verdict significantly. From again that

458
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:47,720
Speaker 1: the original emotional stress damages award was six point nine million,

459
00:26:48,200 --> 00:26:50,960
Speaker 1: the trial court judge reduced that to one point five million,

460
00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:53,639
Speaker 1: and in the retrial, the new jury comes up with

461
00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:59,200
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars, another significant reduction

462
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:02,560
Speaker 1: in the first two numbers, and then they award a

463
00:27:02,640 --> 00:27:06,440
Speaker 1: punitive damages of three million dollars on top of the

464
00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:09,840
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy five thousand in emotional distress damages.

465
00:27:10,040 --> 00:27:13,440
Speaker 1: So he chose the wrong door, it sounds like he did. Now.

466
00:27:13,480 --> 00:27:15,560
Speaker 1: I think that if he had chosen the fifteen million,

467
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:18,720
Speaker 1: it's unclear what Tesla would have done. They may have

468
00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:20,680
Speaker 1: still filed an appeal. I don't think they would have

469
00:27:20,720 --> 00:27:23,159
Speaker 1: been bound by that fifteen million. It's not clear that

470
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:26,240
Speaker 1: they thought that number was a fair amount from their perspective. Now,

471
00:27:26,280 --> 00:27:30,400
Speaker 1: the interesting part about the latest version of this verdict,

472
00:27:30,880 --> 00:27:33,639
Speaker 1: this one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars three million

473
00:27:33,640 --> 00:27:37,280
Speaker 1: dollars in punitive damages, is now once again the punitive

474
00:27:37,359 --> 00:27:41,080
Speaker 1: damages are out of whack with the compensatory damage. As

475
00:27:41,080 --> 00:27:43,560
Speaker 1: they said earlier, the Supreme Court has said that punitive

476
00:27:43,600 --> 00:27:47,080
Speaker 1: damages can't be more than nine times the compensatory damages. Well,

477
00:27:47,119 --> 00:27:50,879
Speaker 1: now it's seventeen times. Three million dollars is seventeen times

478
00:27:51,160 --> 00:27:54,200
Speaker 1: the amount of the emotional distress damages, so that's got

479
00:27:54,200 --> 00:27:57,480
Speaker 1: to be further reduced. The Trial court judge, no doubt,

480
00:27:57,480 --> 00:28:00,639
Speaker 1: will not increase one hundred and seventy five thousand. He

481
00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:03,080
Speaker 1: may reduce it, but I suspect he won't. But what

482
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:05,040
Speaker 1: he will probably have to do, or will be called

483
00:28:05,119 --> 00:28:10,119
Speaker 1: upon my tesla to do, is to again evaluate the

484
00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:13,960
Speaker 1: overall outcome of this case and reduce that three million

485
00:28:14,000 --> 00:28:16,679
Speaker 1: dollars to a number that is much closer to one

486
00:28:16,760 --> 00:28:19,280
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy five thousand dollars than it is to

487
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:21,480
Speaker 1: the current three million. In fact, he would probably have

488
00:28:21,520 --> 00:28:25,320
Speaker 1: to cut it in half or more. So. Juries are

489
00:28:25,400 --> 00:28:29,800
Speaker 1: not told anything about how the punitive damages have to

490
00:28:29,840 --> 00:28:35,520
Speaker 1: be in line with the compensatory by a certain amount exactly,

491
00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:37,920
Speaker 1: and I think that is a failing of the system.

492
00:28:38,600 --> 00:28:41,200
Speaker 1: I think both sides have a reason during the trial

493
00:28:41,320 --> 00:28:45,360
Speaker 1: not to talk about those limits. The plaintiff's lawyer obviously

494
00:28:45,440 --> 00:28:47,240
Speaker 1: is not going to want the jury to hear anything

495
00:28:47,240 --> 00:28:51,080
Speaker 1: about outer limits. So how much the punitive damages might be,

496
00:28:51,640 --> 00:28:55,080
Speaker 1: they would love to have nineteen twenty, thirty forty times

497
00:28:55,080 --> 00:28:58,120
Speaker 1: the amount of the compenstory damages, because that just gives

498
00:28:58,160 --> 00:29:00,840
Speaker 1: them more leverage on a retrial. I'll admit it gives

499
00:29:00,840 --> 00:29:03,200
Speaker 1: them more leverage on appeal. It gives them more leverage,

500
00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:06,520
Speaker 1: perhaps trying to settle the case. The defense, on the

501
00:29:06,560 --> 00:29:09,360
Speaker 1: other hand, however, also doesn't really want to talk about

502
00:29:09,400 --> 00:29:13,560
Speaker 1: those limits because it might suggest to the jury numbers

503
00:29:13,880 --> 00:29:17,040
Speaker 1: multiples of the compensed story damages that they haven't thought of.

504
00:29:17,280 --> 00:29:19,880
Speaker 1: In other words, if the defense says, yes, nine times

505
00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:21,800
Speaker 1: is the maximum, but maybe you should do one or

506
00:29:21,840 --> 00:29:24,400
Speaker 1: two or three times again, that might be something that

507
00:29:24,480 --> 00:29:26,520
Speaker 1: a defense lawyer doesn't want to put out there because

508
00:29:26,520 --> 00:29:30,040
Speaker 1: they're hoping that the jury comes back with a smaller number,

509
00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:33,240
Speaker 1: perhaps even than one times the amount of compensed story damages.

510
00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:35,400
Speaker 1: So they don't want to plant a number usually with

511
00:29:35,480 --> 00:29:39,120
Speaker 1: the jury either. And so there's this bizarre conspiracy of

512
00:29:39,160 --> 00:29:42,160
Speaker 1: silent the way I've put it, and everyone in the courtroom,

513
00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:47,400
Speaker 1: the judge, the lawyers, all know that there's this constitutional

514
00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:50,440
Speaker 1: limit to how much the punitive damages can be, and

515
00:29:50,520 --> 00:29:53,240
Speaker 1: yet nobody tells the most important group of people in

516
00:29:53,280 --> 00:29:56,760
Speaker 1: the courtroom what those limits are, which is the jury.

517
00:29:56,920 --> 00:30:00,440
Speaker 1: The jury is never told about those constitutional limits. And

518
00:30:00,480 --> 00:30:04,400
Speaker 1: I think that going forward, there should be some reform

519
00:30:04,480 --> 00:30:07,320
Speaker 1: here and that there should be a specific jury instruction

520
00:30:07,760 --> 00:30:11,080
Speaker 1: from the judge and admonition from the judge about what

521
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:15,400
Speaker 1: the scope of those punitive damages can and should be.

522
00:30:15,400 --> 00:30:18,520
Speaker 1: Because when that aspect of the case gets to the jury,

523
00:30:19,000 --> 00:30:21,480
Speaker 1: the plantiff lawyer, they all say the exact same thing.

524
00:30:21,520 --> 00:30:25,480
Speaker 1: They say, this defendant, this employer is a very very

525
00:30:25,520 --> 00:30:28,760
Speaker 1: wealthy company. It makes X amounts of money every single

526
00:30:28,840 --> 00:30:31,600
Speaker 1: day in revenue, it makes why amounts of money every

527
00:30:31,600 --> 00:30:35,040
Speaker 1: single day in profits. There's one thing, there's only one

528
00:30:35,080 --> 00:30:37,040
Speaker 1: thing that they understand, and that is money. And you

529
00:30:37,120 --> 00:30:40,120
Speaker 1: need to send them a message. And the only message

530
00:30:40,120 --> 00:30:44,280
Speaker 1: this company understands is money. And so, ladies and gentlemen,

531
00:30:44,320 --> 00:30:45,960
Speaker 1: the jury, you're going to need to hit them with

532
00:30:46,040 --> 00:30:49,040
Speaker 1: some significant amounts that they will learn their lesson. Every

533
00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:51,400
Speaker 1: single plantiff lawyer in the state of California, and I

534
00:30:51,480 --> 00:30:54,800
Speaker 1: suspect around the country says the exact same thing to juries.

535
00:30:54,840 --> 00:30:56,960
Speaker 1: They don't realize that they're being called the same thing

536
00:30:56,960 --> 00:30:59,240
Speaker 1: that every jury in the country is being told under

537
00:30:59,280 --> 00:31:02,320
Speaker 1: the circumstance, and they're invited to do what they need

538
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:05,040
Speaker 1: to do to punish the employer. And the numbers that

539
00:31:05,080 --> 00:31:08,600
Speaker 1: they do here, by the way, are revenue numbers and

540
00:31:08,760 --> 00:31:12,520
Speaker 1: profitability numbers. And so the jury is going to be

541
00:31:12,560 --> 00:31:15,200
Speaker 1: told gee, if you only award a million dollars Elon

542
00:31:15,280 --> 00:31:18,800
Speaker 1: Musk makes that in twenty five minutes, that's that's not

543
00:31:18,840 --> 00:31:21,520
Speaker 1: going to stop him. You've got to really do something,

544
00:31:21,680 --> 00:31:24,160
Speaker 1: you know, to send a message. And so that's what

545
00:31:24,320 --> 00:31:27,400
Speaker 1: happens to get the jury riled up. And then no

546
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:29,440
Speaker 1: one ever comes in and throws any cold water on

547
00:31:29,480 --> 00:31:32,120
Speaker 1: it and says, by the way, don't come back with

548
00:31:32,160 --> 00:31:34,200
Speaker 1: a number that's more than nine times, and maybe you

549
00:31:34,200 --> 00:31:36,080
Speaker 1: should be thinking about a number that's not more than

550
00:31:36,360 --> 00:31:40,280
Speaker 1: two or three times. The compense story damages. Nobody says

551
00:31:40,320 --> 00:31:42,720
Speaker 1: that to the jury, so it's not surprising that they

552
00:31:42,760 --> 00:31:46,160
Speaker 1: come out with these outlandish verdicts. Is the judge able

553
00:31:46,240 --> 00:31:48,640
Speaker 1: to give that kind of instruction orders? They have to

554
00:31:48,680 --> 00:31:52,680
Speaker 1: be in the jury instructions. Typically in a trial such

555
00:31:52,680 --> 00:31:55,080
Speaker 1: as this, the judge gives what are referred to as

556
00:31:55,080 --> 00:31:59,160
Speaker 1: pattern jury instructions, that is, those that have been approved

557
00:31:59,600 --> 00:32:03,240
Speaker 1: by our committees and plaintiest lawyers, defense lawyers who've all

558
00:32:03,320 --> 00:32:05,560
Speaker 1: sort of worked on these and negotiated them. But there

559
00:32:05,560 --> 00:32:09,720
Speaker 1: are also special jury instructions that each side can propose

560
00:32:10,400 --> 00:32:14,000
Speaker 1: to the judge that the judge, within his or her discretion,

561
00:32:14,080 --> 00:32:17,160
Speaker 1: can either read to the jury or not, and some

562
00:32:17,240 --> 00:32:19,760
Speaker 1: judges have their own instructions that they think are appropriate

563
00:32:19,840 --> 00:32:23,440
Speaker 1: for administrative purposes. I just don't know the answer to

564
00:32:23,480 --> 00:32:26,080
Speaker 1: whether anyone's ever suggested this to a judge or whether

565
00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:29,640
Speaker 1: any judges have ever suggested the parties. But I think

566
00:32:29,640 --> 00:32:32,240
Speaker 1: it's high time that somebody started thinking about this, because

567
00:32:32,280 --> 00:32:35,040
Speaker 1: you know, you have the same case and the verdict

568
00:32:35,080 --> 00:32:39,200
Speaker 1: has ranged now from three point one seven five million

569
00:32:39,280 --> 00:32:42,240
Speaker 1: to one hundred and thirty seven million dollars over the

570
00:32:42,320 --> 00:32:45,280
Speaker 1: last year and a half. That is preposterous and it

571
00:32:45,360 --> 00:32:49,560
Speaker 1: breeds disrespect and contempt for our legal system where you

572
00:32:49,600 --> 00:32:52,680
Speaker 1: could have reasonable people, supposedly both in the form of

573
00:32:52,680 --> 00:32:55,920
Speaker 1: the judge and the jury, coming to a conclusion as

574
00:32:55,960 --> 00:33:00,000
Speaker 1: to how much an employee should be recovering under circumstances

575
00:33:00,040 --> 00:33:02,320
Speaker 1: such as this. It is completely ridiculous and it needs

576
00:33:02,360 --> 00:33:05,680
Speaker 1: to be fixed. So this decision, this verdict can be

577
00:33:05,720 --> 00:33:09,440
Speaker 1: appealed by the plaintiff, absolutely, I'm sure it will be appealed.

578
00:33:09,440 --> 00:33:11,719
Speaker 1: That probably will be appealed on both sides. I think

579
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,880
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs lawyer has already said that he believes that

580
00:33:14,960 --> 00:33:18,000
Speaker 1: there was error that occurred during the trial because there

581
00:33:18,120 --> 00:33:20,640
Speaker 1: was a different tack I believe taken. I don't know

582
00:33:20,680 --> 00:33:22,600
Speaker 1: all the details about this, but I believe that there

583
00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:25,400
Speaker 1: was a different tack taken by the defense counsel in

584
00:33:25,400 --> 00:33:28,920
Speaker 1: this case, and they were extremely aggressive in terms of

585
00:33:29,160 --> 00:33:33,160
Speaker 1: challenging the credibility of mister Diaz. I'm sure the original

586
00:33:33,240 --> 00:33:35,320
Speaker 1: lawyers did the same thing, but for perhaps some of

587
00:33:35,320 --> 00:33:37,680
Speaker 1: the reasons I mentioned earlier, which is the jury didn't

588
00:33:37,720 --> 00:33:40,240
Speaker 1: hear all the other evidence about liability. I think it

589
00:33:40,360 --> 00:33:43,440
Speaker 1: landed more solidly with this jury than perhaps in the

590
00:33:43,480 --> 00:33:47,040
Speaker 1: original trial, and they attacked his credibility, and they brought

591
00:33:47,120 --> 00:33:50,240
Speaker 1: up back such as he had recommended each of his

592
00:33:50,320 --> 00:33:53,600
Speaker 1: adult children to apply for jobs at Tesla. The obvious

593
00:33:53,680 --> 00:33:57,480
Speaker 1: question is somebody who is being subjected to this form

594
00:33:57,520 --> 00:34:00,520
Speaker 1: of harassment, such as he had testified about, you wouldn't

595
00:34:00,520 --> 00:34:03,240
Speaker 1: expect that that person would then turn around and recommend

596
00:34:03,240 --> 00:34:05,960
Speaker 1: to family members, close family members with whom he lived.

597
00:34:06,280 --> 00:34:09,200
Speaker 1: I believe that they should also apply for jobs at

598
00:34:09,200 --> 00:34:11,400
Speaker 1: Tesla didn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure the

599
00:34:11,440 --> 00:34:14,040
Speaker 1: planet had explanations for that, and again I don't know

600
00:34:14,080 --> 00:34:17,360
Speaker 1: all the details, but my tacit understanding is the defense

601
00:34:17,440 --> 00:34:21,000
Speaker 1: layers were extremely aggressive in terms of attacking the credibility

602
00:34:21,000 --> 00:34:24,000
Speaker 1: of mister Diaz under these circumstances, which I'm sure tamps

603
00:34:24,080 --> 00:34:29,040
Speaker 1: down significantly the emotional distress component of this verdict. Now,

604
00:34:29,040 --> 00:34:32,640
Speaker 1: there was an arbitration in a similar case what happened there.

605
00:34:33,239 --> 00:34:35,480
Speaker 1: The other thing is really interesting about this case, and

606
00:34:35,800 --> 00:34:37,520
Speaker 1: I think you and I've talked about it before June,

607
00:34:37,520 --> 00:34:40,880
Speaker 1: and that is that this is almost the laboratory condition

608
00:34:41,080 --> 00:34:46,680
Speaker 1: experiment in terms of the arbitration process as compared to

609
00:34:46,719 --> 00:34:50,200
Speaker 1: the jury process in the state of California before the

610
00:34:50,239 --> 00:34:52,839
Speaker 1: original verdict, before one hundred and thirty seven million dollar

611
00:34:52,960 --> 00:34:57,880
Speaker 1: verdict came out in this case, another black employee sued Tesla.

612
00:34:58,000 --> 00:35:02,000
Speaker 1: He was an employee at the exact same location in Fremont, California,

613
00:35:02,120 --> 00:35:07,120
Speaker 1: testified about almost identical circumstances of alleged racial harassment that

614
00:35:07,120 --> 00:35:09,799
Speaker 1: occurred in the workplace. He in fact, was represented by

615
00:35:09,840 --> 00:35:14,120
Speaker 1: the exact same lawyer who prosecuted mister Diaz's. The tale

616
00:35:14,120 --> 00:35:17,160
Speaker 1: of two cities here is that first employee who sued

617
00:35:17,360 --> 00:35:20,640
Speaker 1: and actually got an award had an arbitration agreement. He

618
00:35:20,680 --> 00:35:23,840
Speaker 1: had signed an arbitration agreement, and the arbitrator in that

619
00:35:23,920 --> 00:35:27,479
Speaker 1: case in August of twenty twenty one granted him one

620
00:35:27,560 --> 00:35:30,680
Speaker 1: million dollars, an award no more than one million dollars,

621
00:35:30,680 --> 00:35:33,600
Speaker 1: which at that time was a significantly high amount for

622
00:35:33,680 --> 00:35:36,839
Speaker 1: an arbitrator, because arbitrators are usually fairly careful in terms

623
00:35:36,840 --> 00:35:38,880
Speaker 1: of the amounts of money that they award in these cases.

624
00:35:39,239 --> 00:35:42,000
Speaker 1: That then was followed two months later by again a

625
00:35:42,080 --> 00:35:47,640
Speaker 1: laboratory condition experiment, almost same lawyer, same plant, same allegations,

626
00:35:47,680 --> 00:35:50,560
Speaker 1: just a different employee, and that employee got one hundred

627
00:35:50,560 --> 00:35:53,120
Speaker 1: and thirty seven million dollars. So this is one of

628
00:35:53,120 --> 00:35:56,040
Speaker 1: the reasons why, for example, I think plaintive lawyers would say,

629
00:35:56,160 --> 00:35:59,000
Speaker 1: we hate arbitration, we don't ever want it. It obviously

630
00:35:59,080 --> 00:36:02,360
Speaker 1: is going to result in lower verdicts for our clients

631
00:36:02,400 --> 00:36:06,359
Speaker 1: and less of a participatory element for the plaintiffs lawyer,

632
00:36:06,360 --> 00:36:08,479
Speaker 1: because they usually get forty or fifty percent of whatever

633
00:36:08,520 --> 00:36:11,359
Speaker 1: the underlying verdict is. Defense lawyers, on the other hand,

634
00:36:11,360 --> 00:36:14,680
Speaker 1: are saying arbitration is a perfectly good way of resolving

635
00:36:14,719 --> 00:36:17,759
Speaker 1: these disputes, and that's a much more reasonable outcome that

636
00:36:17,880 --> 00:36:22,680
Speaker 1: can be predicted. Plaintiffs lawyers absolutely don't like arbitration, thanks

637
00:36:22,680 --> 00:36:26,239
Speaker 1: so much, Tony. That's Anthony on CD of Proskauer Rose.

638
00:36:26,640 --> 00:36:29,000
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

639
00:36:29,320 --> 00:36:31,799
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news honor

640
00:36:31,840 --> 00:36:35,960
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

641
00:36:36,160 --> 00:36:41,200
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

642
00:36:41,600 --> 00:36:44,240
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

643
00:36:44,280 --> 00:36:48,200
Speaker 1: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grossow,

644
00:36:48,280 --> 00:36:49,920
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg