What the defendants argue, what the exhibits actually show, and why the difference matters for lawmakers.
In the wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Kathleen Moller following her daughter Harmony Moller’s death, the OPMS defendants filed a motion asking the federal court to rule in their favor without a trial.
The motion was filed March 2, 2026, in the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC. This is the defendants’ account of the evidence. It is not a court ruling and it does not establish that kratom is safe.
1. The product sold to consumers. The OPMS packaging exhibits include an ingredient representation of kratom leaf and listed alkaloid concentrations. A label declaration is not a laboratory confirmation or a safety assessment.
2. The death investigation. The emergency-response and medical evidence establish what was documented, but determining medical causation requires expert interpretation and consideration of other possible contributors.
3. The scientific dispute. The record contains research on kratom toxicology, cardiovascular findings and adverse-event reporting. The parties disagree about what these studies establish for this individual case.
4. The warnings question. Product-label photographs and Dr. Sarah Kowitt’s expert report provide a basis for examining whether consumers were given meaningful information about serious potential harms.
5. The limits of a short-term study. Preliminary single-dose research is not proof that repeated use, vulnerable consumers, or combinations with other drugs are safe.
The defendants contend that the available evidence does not satisfy the legal requirements for the plaintiff’s claims. Their motion asks the judge to assess whether there is a genuine dispute requiring trial.
Some exhibits are expert opinions; some are selected deposition excerpts; others are scientific papers, regulatory materials, or news articles. Their presence in the court record does not mean the judge adopted every statement in them.
For lawmakers, the most useful approach is to read the primary documents and separate documented facts from allegations, competing interpretations and policy claims.
Every document below is preserved from the uploaded PACER package. Descriptive filenames make the records easier to organize. Each entry retains its original docket number and includes a short explanation. Where a document cannot be confidently identified from its extractable text, it is labeled accordingly rather than assigned an invented subject.
Document guide: 78 separate PDFs (the main motion plus 77 attachments). Titles summarize the actual source where identifiable. Depositions are selected excerpts, expert reports are contested opinions, and agency documents do not decide this case. Image-only exhibits are labeled cautiously.
The defendants formally request dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims without a trial. This is a litigant’s motion, not a judicial ruling. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFThe defense sets out its legal arguments concerning Louisiana product-liability requirements, causation and the evidence it believes cannot support the plaintiff’s claims. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFNumbered assertions the defendants ask the judge to accept as uncontested. They are the defense’s proposed facts, not automatically facts found by the court. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFImages of OPMS capsule packaging filed as Exhibit 1. Review the visible labels and representations as marketing evidence, not laboratory confirmation. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFImages of OPMS powder packaging filed as Exhibit 2. The package presents the product as organic and all natural; those words do not themselves establish safety. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFLaw-enforcement event-history and related records concerning the emergency response. These document reported events, not a toxicological determination of cause of death. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFVideotaped testimony of plaintiff Kathleen Moller, taken December 14, 2025. This first-person account provides family history and the circumstances described by the plaintiff. It is testimony, not an independent toxicology finding.
Read original PDFA 119-page collection of fire and emergency-response records associated with the Moller incident. These are contemporaneous emergency-service documents useful for reconstructing the timeline, clinical observations, and treatment; they do not independently establish which substance caused the death.
Read original PDFA 41-page coroner-related record collection. It is important for the medical chronology and the forensic investigation, and should be read alongside the autopsy, laboratory testing, and the experts’ competing causation opinions.
Read original PDFSworn testimony attributed to ALLEN L. DOLLAR, excerpted for the defense filing. Read the questions and answers together; this exhibit does not itself resolve the disputed cause of death. The excerpt was selected for this motion and may omit other testimony; it should be read alongside the full questioning and competing expert evidence.
Read original PDFSworn testimony attributed to WINSTON H. GANDY, excerpted for the defense filing. Read the questions and answers together; this exhibit does not itself resolve the disputed cause of death. The excerpt was selected for this motion and may omit other testimony; it should be read alongside the full questioning and competing expert evidence.
Read original PDFSelected sworn testimony from medical toxicologist Dr. Josef Thundiyil. Excerpts should be considered alongside the complete questions and his written report. The excerpt was selected for this motion and may omit other testimony; it should be read alongside the full questioning and competing expert evidence.
Read original PDFSelected testimony from Dr. Amber Wang, presented by the defense. The excerpts do not by themselves establish the cause of death. The excerpt was selected for this motion and may omit other testimony; it should be read alongside the full questioning and competing expert evidence.
Read original PDFSworn February 23, 2026 testimony of cardiologist Ronald Wharton, addressing his cardiac opinions in the Moller litigation. The excerpt permits readers to examine the assumptions and limits of his proposed explanation for the fatal event.
Read original PDFBoyer’s 66-page defense expert report reviews Harmony Moller’s medical event and challenges the inference that kratom caused her death. Compare its alternative explanations and toxicology reasoning with the plaintiff’s experts and the primary records; it is a retained expert opinion.
Read original PDFLaboratory records and supporting analytical documentation filed by the defense. Laboratory results must be distinguished from an expert’s causal interpretation. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFSworn excerpts from Dr. Michael DeFatta addressing death-investigation issues. Read the complete exchanges before drawing conclusions about cause of death. The excerpt was selected for this motion and may omit other testimony; it should be read alongside the full questioning and competing expert evidence.
Read original PDFExcerpt of Boyer’s February 17, 2026 deposition. The questions test the basis for his expert opinions, including his treatment of toxicology and alternative causes. The answers should be evaluated in context rather than treated as a court finding.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFA two-page image-based exhibit from the defense filing. The merged record preserves the original PACER exhibit designation, but the extractable text does not reliably identify the pictured subject. Examine the linked original image before making claims about its content.
Read original PDFDecember 4, 2024 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Mark Jennings on behalf of RMH Holdings. Corporate-representative testimony can help establish which company performed which functions; the excerpt should not be confused with a finding of liability.
Read original PDFA short sworn deposition excerpt from Mark Reilly submitted by the defense. Its evidentiary value depends on the precise questions and answers; consult the original pages before attributing any admission.
Read original PDFA short deposition excerpt of Peyton Paustenbach. The defense selected these pages for its motion; the excerpt is not a complete transcript or a judicial determination.
Read original PDFA 127-page report by forensic toxicologist Marilyn Huestis, retained by the defense. It addresses the interpretation of kratom alkaloids and case toxicology; the methodology and limitations matter when comparing postmortem concentrations with claims about causation.
Read original PDFHenningfield’s declaration submitted for the defense, with supporting material. It offers his professional interpretation of kratom science and risk; distinguish the declaration’s assertions from the underlying peer-reviewed studies.
Read original PDFThe DEA’s published 2016 proposal concerning kratom scheduling. A proposed action and its historical context are not a current judicial or medical safety finding. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA contemporary news article describing the public debate over federal kratom scheduling. This is journalism, not a clinical safety study. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFA scanned exhibit with limited machine-readable text. It is preserved in the filing for inspection, but its exact assertions cannot be verified from the available text alone. The title deliberately avoids attributing unsupported findings.
Read original PDFAn archived publication concerning the kratom scheduling debate. It reflects public reporting or commentary at the time, not an agency scientific determination; consult the PDF for the original wording.
Read original PDFA scanned exhibit with limited machine-readable text. It is preserved in the filing for inspection, but its exact assertions cannot be verified from the available text alone. The title deliberately avoids attributing unsupported findings.
Read original PDFNews coverage of an HHS recommendation concerning kratom. Distinguish the reported recommendation from a final scheduling action. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA scanned exhibit with limited machine-readable text. It is preserved in the filing for inspection, but its exact assertions cannot be verified from the available text alone. The title deliberately avoids attributing unsupported findings.
Read original PDFThe WHO committee’s published technical report. Its discussion of kratom and related alkaloids should be read in context, including distinctions among substances and evidence limitations. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs document concerning international drug-control deliberations. International scheduling decisions are not equivalent to a finding of product safety. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFA National Institutes of Health research-funding notice. The existence of research funding does not establish efficacy or safety. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFArchived reporting discussing FDA’s botanical-kratom study and researchers’ calls for further evidence. Reporting is secondary material; it should not be treated as the FDA’s full study results.
Read original PDFA trade-press account characterizing preliminary FDA research as well tolerated. Preliminary observations should not be presented as proof of long-term safety or safety across retail products. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFFDA informational material discussing kratom, its alkaloids and agency safety concerns. This is an agency resource, not a finding about this individual death. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFAn FDA communication warning clinicians about 7-OH. Distinguish concentrated 7-OH products from ordinary leaf powder when interpreting it. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFAn assessment of the available evidence and toxicological concerns about 7-hydroxymitragynine, including the limits of applying it to ordinary leaf products. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFA 129-page exhibit containing a September 2025 eight-factor assessment, scientific references and FDA materials. The report acknowledges 7-OH’s opioid activity, abuse and dependence risks and supports Schedule I control, while arguing for a distinction from ordinary leaf. Its disclosures describe consulting relationships involving kratom interests (report page 5).
Read original PDFFDA educational slides on concentrated 7-OH products, retail availability, dependence and the opioid crisis. This is an agency warning presentation, not a clinical trial and not proof that the product involved in this lawsuit contained concentrated 7-OH.
Read original PDFA 2021 peer-reviewed case series of nine regular kratom-tea consumers. Four had prolonged QTc intervals, and higher serum mitragynine was associated with longer QTc. The small uncontrolled study cannot establish causation or predict the risk for all users (study pp. 1, 7–9).
Read original PDFExtensive retained-expert report by Dennis Paustenbach addressing toxicology and risk assessment. This report should be read for its assumptions, exposure calculations, and comparisons with the case evidence; its length does not make its conclusions judicial findings.
Read original PDFHenningfield’s 199-page defense report reviews kratom pharmacology, risk, and the issues presented in the Moller case. It is particularly relevant to the defense’s distinction between leaf and concentrated alkaloid products. Check its cited studies and disclosed relationships when assessing weight.
Read original PDFA separately filed copy of the trade publication’s coverage of preliminary FDA findings. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA separately filed copy of FDA’s general kratom information and safety discussion. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFCardiologist Allen Dollar’s expert report addresses the medical records and competing explanations for the cause of death. It is a defense expert’s interpretation and should be considered alongside the coroner findings and Wharton’s opposing opinion.
Read original PDFA 2023 forensic-science review addressing interpretation of kratom findings in death investigations, including the challenges of toxicology and co-exposures. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFWharton’s report presents the plaintiff’s cardiology causation opinion. Read the underlying medical facts, discussion of possible mechanisms and alternative explanations, and the defense’s criticisms before drawing a conclusion about causation.
Read original PDFScientific article examining ventricular-arrhythmia reports. The signal is relevant to kratom cardiac-safety discussions, but spontaneous adverse-event reports do not establish incidence or prove causation in an individual death.
Read original PDFA 31-page litigation-related exhibit referring to corporate depositions and expert testimony. It documents materials considered in the case; cited testimony should be checked against the underlying transcripts.
Read original PDFA peer-reviewed research article included as evidence. Interpret the study’s population, methods and outcomes before generalizing to retail safety. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFThundiyil’s 49-page report offers a medical-toxicology assessment for Kathleen Moller and explains the plaintiff’s theory that kratom contributed to the fatal event. Its clinical reasoning and treatment of alternative causes are disputed by defense experts.
Read original PDFArchived reporting discussing FDA’s botanical-kratom study and researchers’ calls for further evidence. Reporting is secondary material; it should not be treated as the FDA’s full study results.
Read original PDFKowitt’s report examines consumer warning adequacy, communication of serious risks, and how labeling may shape consumer decisions. The analysis is expert opinion on warnings, not a ruling that a warning defect legally caused the death.
Read original PDFA three-page FDA pilot-study summary. It reports no serious adverse events in the tested single ascending doses, while identifying vomiting as a common adverse event. A small short-term study cannot establish long-term safety or rule out uncommon severe outcomes.
Read original PDFA second filing of the historical 2016 federal scheduling proposal, included in a different exhibit sequence. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA duplicate or separately filed copy of news coverage concerning the 2016 scheduling debate. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFA scanned exhibit with limited machine-readable text. It is preserved in the filing for inspection, but its exact assertions cannot be verified from the available text alone. The title deliberately avoids attributing unsupported findings.
Read original PDFAn archived publication concerning the kratom scheduling debate. It reflects public reporting or commentary at the time, not an agency scientific determination; consult the PDF for the original wording.
Read original PDFA scanned exhibit with limited machine-readable text. It is preserved in the filing for inspection, but its exact assertions cannot be verified from the available text alone. The title deliberately avoids attributing unsupported findings.
Read original PDFA separately filed copy of coverage of the HHS scheduling recommendation. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFThe August 16, 2018 letter from Assistant Secretary Brett Giroir rescinds an earlier recommendation to schedule mitragynine and 7-OH pending better evidence and consideration of possible unintended consequences. This is a historical policy decision, not an FDA declaration that kratom is safe.
Read original PDFA separately filed copy of the WHO technical report also appearing earlier in the exhibit set. The agency material provides historical or scientific context; its inclusion as a defense exhibit does not mean the agency decided the facts of this lawsuit.
Read original PDFA separately filed research-funding notice; this is not clinical proof of product safety. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFAnother short deposition excerpt from the corporate testimony submitted in the defense exhibits. Compare with the longer RMH Holdings deposition and review its exact questions and answers.
Read original PDFA proposed order prepared for the judge’s consideration. Do not treat it as an entered or signed judicial ruling. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFProcedural notice concerning submission of the motion for the court’s consideration. It is not a decision on the merits. Its inclusion shows what the defense submitted for the court’s consideration, not that the court accepted every claim made in the document.
Read original PDFSource: Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., E.D. Louisiana, No. 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC, docket entry 267 and attachments, filed March 2, 2026. The descriptions are informational summaries, not findings of fact. Some scanned exhibits have limited machine-readable text; refer to the originals for exact contents.
