Appeals court removes Young from opioid case

Apr. 21—A Tennessee Appeals Court has removed Circuit Court Judge Jonathan Young from an opioid case and vacated a default order against pharmaceutical company.

The order issued Wednesday from the Court of Appeals at Knoxville said, "We conclude that concerns contributing to an appearance of partiality necessitate the trial judge's recusal, we reverse. In addition, we vacate an order on substantive matters that was signed by the trial judge while the recusal motion was pending."

In a post to his Re-Elect Judge Young Facebook page Wednesday, Young wrote, "While I am deeply saddened by this decision and disagree with it, I must follow what the Court of Appeals states unless the Supreme Court has something to say about it."

Young continued, "I am not saddened that I do not get to hear this case anymore. I have more than enough to keep me busy. However, what is sad is the Appeals Court reversed my ruling punishing Endo Pharmaceuticals for hiding about 50 million documents from you the Plaintiff's. I have no ill will toward the opioid companies, but simply punish anyone who does not follow the rules to this extent no matter who they are. They will not get a second chance to persuade a judge to give them a break for this."

The order points to comments and interactions Young had on Facebook following a Feb. 10, 2022, hearing in which he granted a default judgment against Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. During the hearing, Young ruled the company had not met requirements to share evidence in the civil case brought by multiple counties in the 13th Judicial District, first filed in 2018.

The case alleges violations of the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act, which allows entities and individuals harmed by illegal drug use to seek civil remedies. Endo is accused of facilitating distribution of opioids into the illegal drug market.

A damages trial was set for April 2023.

Following the hearing, Young granted an interview to a reporter with Law360.com, a legal news website. In the interview, Young compared the alleged discovery violations to the plot of a "John Grisham movie."

Young then took to his personal Facebook page, questioning the lack of local media coverage in the case. That post has since been removed from his page.

Endo filed a motion seeking Young's recusal. Plaintiffs, represented by the law firm of Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, in Nashville argued the comments do not "rise to the level necessitating recusal under Tennessee law." Instead they say Young repeated facts and conclusions that had already been made in open court but not yet issued in a written order.

"Second, the Facebook posts were factual, directed at local news, and did not reflect (nor could they reasonably construed to reflect) partiality against Endo," their motion continued.

Young ruled against the motion for recusal and Endo appeals to the Court of Appeals in Knoxville. A three-judge panel reversed his decision.

The opinion was written by Judge Arnold B. Goldin and joined by Judges D. Michael Swiney and Andy D. Bennett.

While the comments were on Young's personal Facebook page, the appeals court noted it appeared part of Young's re-election campaign, with a "Re-Elect" picture banner next to his name.

It was in the comments that the court focused their opinion.

After one commenter asked if Young was "trying to ban drunken bridesmaids on peddle carts," Young responded, "[N]ope. Opioids." The commentator continued, "I don't know if you're going to get the help or platform you need from those with power/deep pockets. Many of Tennessee's powerful have ties to pharmaceuticals."

Young "liked" the comment.

Another asked if Young could say why the case was newsworthy. Young responded, "Is a $1.2 Billion opioid case. Our area has been rocked with that drug for decades. Lots of interesting and new developments about the manufacturers in this case."

The court wrote, "The above Facebook activity can reasonably be construed to suggest that the trial judge has a specific agenda that is antagonistic to the interests of those in the pharmaceutical industry."

Plaintiffs argued other comments on the thread were more nuanced. They accused the Endo defendants of "cherry picking" and "decontextualizing" quotes.

The court responded, "[t]he trial judge's post clearly appears to signal support for banning opioids on its face."

"In our view, this activity by the trial judge positions himself publicly as an interested community advocate and voice for change in the larger societal controversy over opioids, not an impartial adjudicator presiding over litigation," the court wrote.

That perception is enhanced when considered with comments in the Law360.com article and Young's expressed interest in more local media coverage, the judges said.

"The trial judge appears to us to be motivated to garner interest in this case and draw attention to his stated opposition to opioids," they wrote.

The court also found Young signed an order on the sanctions against Endo prior to the pending motion for recusal. The court said he should have taken no further action on the case while the motion was pending.

"In this circumstance and in light of our conclusion that the trial judge should have recused himself, we hold that the order on sanctions against the Endo Defendants, which had been incorporated into the order on recusal, should be vacated," the ruling states.

Endo filed an accelerated appeal, which halted the trial court proceedings.

The plaintiffs objected to the appeal, saying Endo had not stated in their filing that the motion was "not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."

The court found the plaintiffs had not raised that issue at the trial court and the facts of the case merited discussion.

"In this case, it is clear to us that a reasonable basis for questioning the trial judge's impartiality exists," the ruling states.

"Particularly noteworthy here in our view is the trial judge's engagement on Facebook concerning this litigation, activity that occurred after the trial judge had aforementioned interview to Law360.com concerning the case."

The appeals court remanded the case to the Presiding Judge of the 13th Judicial District for transfer to a different judge.

Heather Mullinix is editor of the Crossville Chronicle. She covers schools and education in Cumberland County. She may be reached at hmullinix@crossville-chronicle.com.