City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:18-cv-07591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Judge Breyer denied Walgreens’ motion to strike witness Carol Lu.
Walgreens and the City and County of San Francisco; the ruling allowed Carol Lu to remain available as a trial witness and allowed Walgreens to depose her before her expected testimony.
What happened
In City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Walgreens asked the court to prevent Carol Lu from testifying during the trial’s abatement phase, which concerns how an abatement fund would be administered.
Lu, the Citywide Revenue Manager in the San Francisco Controller’s Office, was expected to explain how the City administers special-purpose funds and tracks spending through audits and reports. Walgreens argued that the City disclosed her too late during discovery. The City responded that it did not have to identify her because she lacked specific knowledge about opioids or Walgreens.
The court agreed that the City should have identified Lu earlier but denied Walgreens’ motion to strike. Judge Charles R. Breyer found that her testimony could help with the abatement plan and allowed Walgreens to promptly depose her to reduce any prejudice from the late disclosure.
The detailed version
- City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · No. 3:18-cv-07591
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Walgreens moved to strike, or exclude, Carol Lu from testifying during the abatement phase of the trial. Lu is the Citywide Revenue Manager from the San Francisco Controller’s Office. The City expected her to testify about the mechanics and logistics of administering an abatement fund, including how the Controller’s Office administers special-purpose revenue funds and tracks related spending through audits and reports.
The parties’ positions
Walgreens accepted that Lu’s expected testimony was relevant but argued that the City should have identified her during discovery as someone likely to have discoverable information. The parties agreed that the City did not identify Lu as a potential witness until October 6, when they exchanged their trial witness list.
The City argued that earlier disclosure was unnecessary because Lu had no specific knowledge about opioids or Walgreens that would support or contradict the City’s claims or defenses. Walgreens also suggested that Lu’s testimony could be expert opinion involving specialized or technical knowledge.
Court’s reasoning
The court agreed that the City should have identified Lu earlier because her testimony about administering special-purpose funds appeared related to the City’s position on how to carry out and distribute the abatement fund. The court rejected Walgreens’ suggestion that Lu would provide expert opinion. It found that her expected testimony was likely based on her own perceptions, knowledge, and understanding of the City’s administrative and financial operations as a member of the Controller’s Office.
The court found that Lu’s testimony might be helpful and important in creating an abatement plan, defining the role of a possible fund administrator, and structuring oversight of the plan.
Ruling
Judge Charles R. Breyer DENIED Walgreens’ motion to strike. To address or reduce any prejudice from the City’s late disclosure, the court allowed Walgreens to promptly depose Lu. The court also stated that it did not expect Lu to testify until the latter part of trial, giving Walgreens time to prepare for cross-examination.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.