Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of the evolving legal, regulatory, and insurance landscape surrounding PFAS ("forever chemicals") and their growing impact on businesses and insurers. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Bob Horkovich and Cameron Argetsinger and environmental experts Arthur J. Clarke and Walker Prentke from J.S. Held. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of ey insurance coverage issues arising from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, including business interruption claims, deductibles, flood sublimits, and strategies to address delays in the claims adjustment process. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Dennis Artese, Marshall Gilinsky, Joshua Gold, and Grant Brown of Anderson Kill, P.C. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Gain an understanding of the latest developments in antitrust class action litigation, including evolving class certification standards, key rulings on multi-district litigation, and major settlements shaping the field on a CLE webinar featuring experienced antitrust attorneys Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Sean P. McConnell. Explore significant court decisions on pricing algorithms, the right-to-repair movement, and baseball’s antitrust exemption while staying informed on critical trends in competition law. Register now!
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of the complex insurance coverage and remediation issues arising from wildfire disasters, including property damage claims under commercial all-risk and homeowners insurance, valuation provisions like replacement cost and ACV, and time element coverages such as business income loss, civil authority coverage, and additional living expenses. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Dennis Artese, Marshall Gilinsky, and Joshua Gold of Anderson Kill, P.C. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Gain a better understanding of the key developments on the arbitration front related to class action defense, including the key U.S. Supreme Court rulings shaping the litigation landscape and the main arbitration trends to remain vigilant for on a CLE webinar featuring experienced class action defense attorneys Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Eden E. Anderson. Register today!
Gain a better understanding of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and wage and hour collective actions, get up to date on significant trends and recent key settlements in this area of law, and grasp the main considerations for conditional class certification and decertification and the key collective action rulings handed down in 2023 on a CLE webinar featuring experienced class action defense litigators Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Greg Tsonis. Sign up today!
Join full-time mediator and arbitrator Jeff Trueman and practicing attorney John Sly for a CLE webinar focused on enhancing your understanding of how AI can assist with your work, specifically how it can be used to handle disputes more efficiently, facilitate improved decision-making, and leverage predictive capabilities to achieve optimal outcomes in dispute resolution.
Data breach class actions have emerged as one of the fastest growing areas in the complex litigation space, forcing companies to navigate evolving cybersecurity risks, negative publicity, and costly litigation as a result. Litigation was particularly notable in 2023, with a record-breaking number of filings and several high-profile cases resulting in substantial settlements. The sheer volume of individuals affected by data breaches has grown significantly, leading to larger classes and subsequently higher settlement demands. Furthermore, the nature of the data being compromised is becoming more sensitive – including financial and health information – which increases the potential damages awarded in these cases. Join experienced class action defense litigators Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley for a high-level breakdown of the data breach class action landscape through analysis of key trends, rulings, and litigation strategies.
Beyond Predominance: Alternative Arguments Against Class Certification Leverage the Latest Court Decisions to Challenge Class Membership and Defeat Certification. Class certification proceedings often focus on whether common issues predominate over individual issues. Recent decisions, however, highlight the importance of raising arguments beyond those afforded by Rule 23(b)(3)--including arguments arising from other subsections of Rule 23 and those originating in the case law. Join our panel as they discuss recent developments concerning several such avenues for defending against certification, including: Ascertainability. Ascertainability demands that class action plaintiffs present a mechanism for identifying prospective class members before the class is certified. Panelists will explain the federal circuit split on ascertainability issues, discuss recent decisions denying class certification on this ground, and provide insight regarding which arguments seem to be well received in different jurisdictions. Typicality and adequacy. Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements prevent certification if the claims of the named plaintiff(s) are subject to unique defenses not applicable to the class as a whole. Panelists will discuss recent case law in which class action defendants have used these requirements to their advantage and provide litigation strategies for setting up such arguments on class certification. Article III standing. Our panel will discuss the different approaches to applying Ramirez v. TransUnion L.L.C. and Spokeo v. Robins and consider the avenues available to challenge class certification on Article [...]
Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions in Class Action Litigation: Deposing or Defending Corporate Witnesses, Rule 30 Class action plaintiffs rely on Rule 30(b)(6) depositions as a strategic tool to question corporate representatives about specific topics and bind the corporation to the testimony. There are frequent disputes over the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice's adequacy and now Rule 30 requires the parties to meet and confer about various aspects of the deposition. There are also frequent disputes over whether the corporation fulfilled its obligation to select an appropriate deponent and properly prepare the deponent for deposition. From the defendant's perspective, preparation for and defense of a corporate deposition directly impacts the case's success and potential future cases. Counsel must strategically determine who should represent the corporation at the deposition, how much preparation is adequate, and how to deal with privilege issues. Melanie Conroy Partner Pierce Atwood Michael McCarthy Shareholder Greenberg Taurig Robert Neary Of Counsel Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LIVE Webinar June 29th 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What are some best practices for crafting a deposition notice that adequately identifies the scope of the 30(b)(6) deposition? What is the best way to employ the "meet and confer" requirement? What strategies are effective when questioning the corporate representative and handling objections during the deposition? [...]
Excluding Epidemiological Evidence Under FRE 702 in Toxic Tort, Medical Device, and Pharmaceutical Cases Strategies for Exposing an Expert's Serious Methodological Deficiencies In every toxic tort, medical device, and pharmaceutical product liability case, a threshold issue is whether the product, device, or substance is even capable of causing the alleged harm in some part of the population. To establish this, lawyers rely first and foremost on epidemiological experts and research, the "gold standard" of general causation evidence. Causation, however, is a continuum, and no single study can prove causation. If the plaintiff's epidemiological testimony and related studies are excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, the litigation will most likely end, or at least be significantly narrowed. Thus, admissibility under FRE 702 and Daubert is fiercely litigated in most cases. Courts are increasingly taking a "hard look" at experts' methodologies and assessing whether the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. For example, courts are analyzing experts' logic, asking if their final opinions exceed the limits of applicable studies, and being sensitive to when experts are "cherry-picking" the evidence to fit the desired conclusions. Christopher Campbell Partner DLA Piper Stephen McConnell Partner Reed Smith Sarah Carrier Attorney DLA Piper Christian Castile Attorney Reed Smith CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford [...]
Defending Punitive Damages Cases and Preventing Runaway Awards: New Approaches Runaway punitive damages awards continue to demonstrate that traditional defense strategies can fail against increasingly sophisticated arguments from the plaintiffs' bar. Getting the claim dismissed on summary judgment or arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary level of culpability may be tools but often fail as stand-alone strategies. Radically different approaches are needed. Counsel must develop a comprehensive strategy, including affirmatively telling the defendant's story. Defendants are finding success in invoking FRE 407 and arguing that subsequent changes have made punitive damages unnecessary. This approach may be instrumental in a variety of tort cases, including trucking and motor carrier cases. Laurie Webb Daniel Partner Webb Daniel Friedlander Kathryn Lehman Partner King & Spalding CLE On-Demand Webinar July 18th, 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. Why do motions to dismiss or for summary judgment usually fail? How can defense counsel give the jury a reason not to award punitive damages? Why must defense counsel, when punitive damages are alleged, think like a plaintiff's lawyer? How can anchoring be used effectively? How can counsel use FRE 407 to show that punitive damages are unnecessary? Finding and telling the defendant's story Focusing on the "why" of the defendant's actions Countering [...]
