What lawmakers should know
In a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Kathleen Moller following the death of Harmony Moller, the plaintiff retained Evelyn Cadman, a consumer-product regulatory consultant, to examine OPMS kratom labeling and compliance. Her report appears as Exhibit 1 to a March 2, 2026 defense motion seeking to exclude her testimony.
At a glance
- Case: Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00228, Eastern District of Louisiana.
- Issue: Whether the expert may testify about dietary ingredient rules, safety substantiation, product labeling and drug claims.
- Expert position: Cadman says OPMS products did not satisfy applicable industry and regulatory standards.
- Defense position: JOpen argues she lacks the necessary case-specific foundation and offers legal conclusions reserved for the court.
- Status: These are filings and disputed opinions, not a finding of liability. The included proposed order is unsigned.
The strongest evidence for a legislative review
1. Was safety established before retail sale? Cadman writes that the defendants did not verify that the OPMS kratom products were reasonably safe for human consumption. She ties this opinion to the FDA new dietary ingredient process. Expert report, PDF pp. 8–10.
2. An ingredient can be sold without FDA approval of its safety. The report explains that a premarket new dietary ingredient notification generally requires evidence that an ingredient is reasonably expected to be safe under labeled conditions. Cadman argues the OPMS products failed that standard. Expert report, PDF pp. 8–9.
3. The labeling and therapeutic-claim dispute. Cadman opines that OPMS products were misbranded and marketed as unapproved drugs without adequate warnings. The defense disputes both her evidence and her authority to reach those legal conclusions. Expert report, PDF pp. 10 onward; defense memorandum.
4. FDA records are in the exhibits. The defense attached FDA material addressing kratom, its opioid-active alkaloids, and the absence of legally marketed FDA-approved kratom drug products. These are regulatory context, not proof of the defendants’ liability. Exhibits 3 and 4.
5. Corporate testimony on consumer complaints. In excerpts from a JOpen corporate designee deposition, David Gabbay discusses channels for adverse-event information and says he does not know whether reports were received during a period described in the questioning. The excerpt does not establish that no complaints existed. Exhibit 5, transcript pp. 36–37.
What the defense argues
JOpen moved to exclude Cadman under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. It argues that her opinions improperly decide legal questions such as whether products were “adulterated” or “misbranded,” that she lacks sufficient kratom-specific expertise, and that her conclusions about OPMS Silver marketing, labeling and product testing lack adequate factual support.
A motion to exclude an expert is not a judicial finding that the expert is wrong. Equally, filing an expert report does not establish that the plaintiff’s allegations are true. The included proposed order is unsigned and should not be described as a court ruling.
Read the original PACER documents
All nine PACER documents are linked below using their original docket-number filenames in the central OPMS PDF archive.
Why this matters
The central policy question is broader than one company: how can a state verify that kratom products sold to consumers have an adequate safety basis, truthful labeling and a workable process for identifying harms? These records show that those questions are being contested in federal litigation.
Source note: Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC, PACER Document 241 and Exhibits 1–7, filed March 2, 2026. The lawsuit began in 2024. This page summarizes allegations, expert opinions and defense arguments, not adjudicated findings.