1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 IN RE: MCKINSEY & CO., INC. 8 MDL No. 2996 CRB NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE

9 LITIGATION

_________________________________/ ORDER ON MOTIONS TO 10 INTERVENE 11 This Order Relates To:

12 Adams Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs et al. v. McKinsey and Co., Inc., Case No. 21- 13 Re: Member Case Dkt. Nos. 6, 7 cv-09107-CRB 14

15 16 In the above-captioned member case, there are two pending filings styled as motions to 17 intervene (dkts. 6, 7). Both were filed by pro se litigants. Both filings have headers that describe 18 them as motions to intervene, and each case bears the docket number of the Adams County case. 19 Nevertheless, it appears to the Court that these pro se litigants intended to file independent 20 civil actions against McKinsey. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

(9th Cir. 2010) (stating 21 that courts have the “obligation, . . . where the petitioner is pro se, . . . to construe the pleadings 22 liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt”) (quotation marks omitted). The 23 litigants likely styled their filings as “motions to intervene” because they wished to join their cases 24 to the In re: Mckinsey MDL, not because they sought to intervene in the Adams County case in 25 particular. Adams County is, after all, an action brought by political subdivisions, not individuals. 26 Nor do any of Ohio subdivision plaintiffs in Adams County appear to have any relationship with 27 the pro se litigants, who reside in Virginia and Connecticut, respectively. Finally, the filings do 1 not offer any “grounds for intervention” in the Adams County action as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 24(c). They are just complaints against McKinsey. 3 Accordingly, the Court finds the filings by Ms. Isaacs and Ms. Ecke et al. should have 4 || been docketed as separate civil cases. The Clerk is directed to reclassify each motion to intervene 5 (dkts. 6, 7) as an initial filing in a separate civil action and assign a civil case number to each 6 || action.! 7 Lead Counsel is directed to contact these litigants using the contact information in their 8 filings and assist them in finding representation if they desire it. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 16, 2024 CHARLES R. BREYER 12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

A 16

o 17

1g Zz. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The Administrative Motion to Waive PACER Fees (dkt. 8) filed by Ms. Ecke is denied as moot.