Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 1 No. _____ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT IN RE: STATE OF OHIO : United States District Court : for the Northern District of Ohio : Eastern Division [COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO, ET AL., : VS. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., ET AL.] : District Court Case Nos. : 1:18-op-45090 [CUYAHOGA COUNTY V. PURDUE : 1:17-op-45004 PHARMA, ET AL.] : [relates to: 1:17-md-02804] {RELATES TO: NATIONAL PRESCRIP- TION OPIATE LITIGATION} PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OF STATE OF OHIO DAVE YOST Ohio Attorney General (0056290) JONATHAN BLANTON* (0070035) Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation *Counsel of Record CHARLES MILLER (0073844) Office Counsel MICHAEL HENDERSHOT (0081842) Chief Deputy Solicitor General SAMUEL PETERSON (0081432) Deputy Solicitor General 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 614-728-1171 [email protected] Counsel for the State of Ohio Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. iii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE............................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 2 STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 11 I. Mandamus is available to correct district court orders that threaten significant non-party interests that are not correctable on appeal. .............................................................................................. 12 II. A writ is necessary here because the bellwether trial is legal error that will harm Ohio’s sovereign interests. ......................................... 14 A. The bellwether trial invades Ohio’s sovereign interests and threatens its ability to recover from many of the same defendants. ............................................................................. 15 B. A writ is necessary to end legal error. ...................................... 23 C. Because Ohio cannot be forced to join or intervene in the federal cases, mandamus is the appropriate remedy. ............... 27 D. This petition raises important questions about state sovereignty and state resources. .............................................. 28 E. The scheduled bellwether trial involves the type of error this Court has corrected through mandamus. .......................... 29 III. Remedy ............................................................................................. 32 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................... 35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.............................................................................. 36 Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 3 APPENDIX: State ex rel. Yost v. Purdue Pharma, L.P. Complaint, Ross County Court of Common Pleas, May 31, 2017 State ex rel. Yost v. McKesson Corp., et al. Complaint, Madison County Court of Common Pleas, February 26, 2018 The County of Summit, Ohio Complaint, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, May 29, 2018 Opinion and Order, United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of Ohio, December 19, 2018 Civil Jury Trial Order, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, May 1, 2019 Letter from Attorneys General, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, June 24, 2019 Letter from National Association of Attorneys General, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, July 23, 2019 Letter from Ohio Attorney General, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, July 24, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, August 6, 2019 ii Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) .................................................................................... 20, 25 Alfred L. Snapp & Son v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) ................................................................................... passim Allegheny Gen. Hosp. v. Philip Morris, 228 F.3d 429 (3d Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 22 In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 13, 29, 30 Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) .......................................................................................... 30 State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. v. Gibson, 130 Ohio St. 318 (1935)..................................................................................... 23 Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) .......................................................................................... 24 In re Bendectin Prods. Liab. Litig., 749 F.2d 300 (6th Cir. 1984) ................................................................. 13, 23, 28 CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir. 1975) ............................................................................. 14 Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) ................................................................................... 12, 23 City of Cleveland v. Ameriquest Mortg. Sec., Inc., 615 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 22 City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., 536 U.S. 424 (2002) .............................................................................. 10, 17, 29 Cmty. Commc’ns Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U.S. 40 (1982) ....................................................................................... 9, 17 iii Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 5 Cty. of Summit v. Purdue Pharma L.P (In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.), No. 1:18-op-45090, 2018 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 176260 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 5, 2018) ............................................................................................................ 25 Cty. of Summit v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.), No. 1:18-op-45090, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213657 (Dec. 19, 2018) .................. 25 Doe v. Univ. of Mich. (In re Univ. of Mich.), ___ F.3d ___, No. 19-1636, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25304 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2019) .................................................................................. 3, 12, 13 Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Higginson, 631 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ........................................................................... 18 Evans v. Buchanan, 582 F.2d 750 (3d Cir. 1978) ......................................................................... 12, 14 Georgia v. Pa. R. Co., 324 U.S. 439 (1945) .................................................................................... 17, 22 In re Glenn W. Turner Enters. Litig., 521 F.2d 775 (3d Cir. 1975) ............................................................................... 21 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. Edelstein, 494 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1974)................................................................................ 24 Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) .................................................................................... 17, 24 HD Media Co., LLC v. United States DOJ (In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig.), Nos. 18-3839/3860, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18502 (6th Cir. June 20, 2019) ...............................................................................................26, 29, 33 Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) ........................................................................................... 25 Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (1978) ........................................................................................... 16 iv Case: 19-3827 Document: 1-2 Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 6 Jackson v. Cleveland Clinic Found., No. 1:11 CV 1334, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101768 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2011) ............................................................................................................ 10 John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 13, 14 Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386 (1974) .......................................................................................... 27 Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9 (1926) ............................................................................................. 13 Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995) ............................................................................................ 32 In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 481 F.2d 122 (9th Cir. 1973) ............................................................................. 22 In re: Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., ___ Fed. App’x ___, No. 19-3682 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019) ............................ 12 In re NLO, 5 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................... 24, 30, 31 Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) .......................................................................................... 30 Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313 (1934) .........................................................................................