Complex Litigation - United States of America v. Philip Morris USA Inc

Thompson Coburn LLP tried this case as part of its ongoing role as national counsel for Lorillard Tobacco Company. A Thompson Coburn team, which included 10 attorneys, lived in Washington, D.C., for nearly a year defending Lorillard at trial.

The case was brought by the United States Department of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, against the major cigarette manufacturers and industry associations. The government’s multi-billion dollar claims for reimbursement of smoking-related Medicare and federal employee health care expenses were dismissed by the District Court before trial. The trial commenced in September 2004 under the government’s remaining theory: that under the racketeering laws, it could obtain "disgorgement" of nearly $280 billion of defendants’ profits (the disgorgement amount originally claimed by the government’s experts was nearly $1 trillion). Five months into the trial, as the result of an interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that disgorgement was not available to the government under RICO. The government was permitted to revise its request for relief, and to seek multi-billion dollar remedies which included nationwide smoking cessation and youth antismoking programs. Discovery on the government’s newly proposed remedies occurred during trial, and the trial concluded in June 2005. The case was extraordinarily large and complex by any measure. Tens of millions of pages of documents were produced before trial, and hundreds of expert and fact depositions were taken. At trial, nearly three dozen expert witnesses and 50 fact witnesses testified live, more than 150 additional witnesses appeared by prior testimony, and more than 17,000 exhibits were used. The trial record spanned over 40,000 pages. Following the trial, the parties submitted proposed post-trial findings and conclusions that totaled nearly 5,000 pages. The District Court filed its 1,652 page opinion in August, 2006, which upon motion by Defendants, was stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in October, 2006. The appeal is pending.