The Reverse Reptile: Rethinking Traditional Defense Strategies and Antidotes Photo by Jeremy McGilvrey on Unsplash "Reptile theory" is a challenging and often-discussed plaintiff's trial strategy. It subtly encourages jurors to envision themselves in the same situation as a plaintiff but with the power to "save" the plaintiff, themselves, and the community from future harm by awarding a large verdict. Much has been written and discussed about oral defenses against reptile strategy, such as during depositions and witness examinations, as well as during opening and closing. But there are also powerful tools and strategies that can be wielded in defense of this strategy: counter anchoring numbers on damages, humanizing the corporate defendant, motions in limine, trial briefs, and motions for new trial/judgment notwithstanding the verdict, among others. Knowing these strategies and how to present them, including drafting these motions and briefs carefully and precisely allows defense counsel [...]

PFAS Contamination: Current Regulatory Landscape and Science Over the past 18 months, U.S. EPA and the Biden Administration have issued numerous new regulations of PFAS under CERCLA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and other environmental statutes.In recent months, the U.S. EPA has issued significant new toxicity assessments and drinking water regulations for PFAS, including PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and PFBS. U.S. EPA also has taken steps to regulate PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under CERCLA. State regulators are also imposing new drinking water limits, cleanup standards, and testing requirements for PFAS. The U.S. EPA and a number of states are planning to issue numerous additional regulations of PFAS over the next few years.Listen as our authoritative panel examines the evolving federal and state regulatory landscape for PFAS. The group will discuss current scientific data on PFAS, including a review of [...]

Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict with the 23(b)(3) Predominance Requirement  Proposed class actions seeking monetary damages are often difficult to certify because common issues do not predominate over individualized issues as required by Rule 23(b)(3). Rule 23(c)(4) provides that "[w]hen appropriate, an action may be brought or maintained as a class action with respect to particular issues."Although Rule 23(c)(4) has been part of the rule since the landmark 1966 amendments, it was often overlooked until the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Plaintiffs now routinely seek limited issue certification for purported common issues, such as liability, arguing that questions of injury, reliance, or causation should be left for individual cases. When approved, this approach increases defendants' exposure by permitting certification in some cases that would otherwise fail the Rule 23(b)(3) standards.The federal circuits are now in a three-way split on how issue certification should be treated under Rule [...]

Nursing Home Injury Litigation: Common Claims, Medical Records and Damages Assessment Photo by Irwan iwe on Unsplash Counsel bringing nursing home injury claims must understand the statutory, regulatory, and established common law standards of care applicable to nursing home residents and governing patient care. The most common nursing home injuries--pressure sores, severe malnutrition or dehydration, physical and chemical restraints, elopement, falls, improper medication, and abuse--involve different approaches. Medical records, discovery, and damage assessment present unique challenges to counsel. Listen as our authoritative panel of practitioners provides an overview of nursing home laws and regulations, discusses common types of injuries, covers how to handle medical records and other discovery issues unique to these cases, and reviews how to assess damages.   Subjects What are the key steps to develop a claim involving injury to a nursing home resident?What evidentiary and discovery challenges are present in [...]

Discovery on Discovery: Disputes About a Litigant's Efforts to Search for, Locate, Preserve, and Collect Responsive ESI Much is written about the expectation of cooperation between parties in litigation. And while cooperation is required in the discovery context, litigants have no transparency requirement on how they respond to discovery requests. Counsel should be vigilant in recognizing improper attempts by another party to extend the concept of discovery by demanding transparency.Most courts will not permit discovery on discovery in the absence of a showing that the responding party acted in bad faith or unlawfully withheld documents. Indeed, courts have routinely denied requests for discovery on discovery based on the requesting party's "mere speculation" that the responding party has acted improperly in responding to discovery.A requesting party may support a request for discovery on discovery by demonstrating an adequate factual basis, including inconsistencies with the responding party's production, deposition [...]