What lawmakers need to know
In Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., a Louisiana wrongful-death lawsuit filed in 2024, defendant JOpen asked the federal court to prevent the plaintiff from relying on research associated with medical toxicologist Dr. Josef Thundiyil. The February 3, 2026 filing is about expert disclosure rules. Its exhibits also contain medical examiner research on deaths involving mitragynine, the principal alkaloid in kratom.
At a glance
- 38 cases: A research poster classified 38 of 149 reviewed deaths with mitragynine detected as mitragynine-induced fatalities.
- 1900 vs 23 ng/mL: Reported median mitragynine concentrations in the classified fatality group and associated-death group, respectively.
- 80%: A second poster reported additional substances in 80% of its studied fatality cases.
- Unsettled threshold: Researchers said a clear toxicological threshold remained undefined.
- Case status: The filing asks to exclude evidence; it does not itself establish that the judge excluded it.
The most consequential safety evidence
The study compared cases in which mitragynine was judged to have caused death with cases in which it was detected but another cause was more likely. The reported median concentrations were approximately 1,900 ng/mL and 23 ng/mL, respectively. This is an association in selected postmortem cases, not a validated lethal-dose cutoff. Read Exhibit A
The second poster describes a Florida medical examiner review of suspected mitragynine fatalities. It reports a mean mitragynine concentration of about 2,487 ng/mL and notes that most cases involved more than one substance. The authors emphasize that causes may be multifactorial and further work is needed on interactions and toxic concentrations. Read Exhibit B
Why this matters: The exhibits challenge claims that kratom is categorically harmless. They also demonstrate why legislators should not equate detection alone with causation or assume one blood concentration reliably predicts death.
What the defense tried to exclude
JOpen argued that the plaintiff failed to timely disclose research posters, underlying records and related public statements associated with Dr. Thundiyil. The company asked the court to preclude reliance on the research or, alternatively, permit further deposition questioning and production of study materials. These are procedural allegations made by the defense, not findings that the research is false. Motion | Defense brief
Correspondence and deposition excerpts show a dispute about whether poster presentations and supporting information were adequately disclosed. Correspondence | Deposition | Further correspondence
What the research does not establish
These posters are preliminary research summaries, not full peer-reviewed manuscripts included in this PACER set. They do not establish how often kratom causes death among all consumers, a safe daily dose, or a universal fatal blood concentration. Polysubstance exposure is an important limitation, particularly in the risk-factor poster.
The motion includes an unsigned proposed order. It should not be described as a judicial ruling. Unsigned proposed order
The legislative question
If medical examiners can identify deaths in which mitragynine is considered the most likely cause, yet researchers still cannot define a dependable toxic threshold, what evidence should lawmakers require before accepting broad retail-safety claims?
These filings supply evidence and questions worth investigating, not a substitute for independent review of the underlying medical records and study methods.
Read the complete PACER record
Original PDFs preserved and renamed for easy identification. Each file retains its PACER docket number in the page header.