Judge Abused Discretion in Striking Expert Evidence, NJ Appellate Court Finds
Reverses 2016 Summary Judgment in Ovarian Cancer Cases
On August 5, a three judge panel from the New Jersey state appeals court reversed a 2016 summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc miner Imerys Talc America in cases brought by two women who allege J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer.
In its opinion, the panel ruled that Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson C. Johnson abused his discretion by serving as the fact finder in deciding the credibility of the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions instead of merely assessing whether the doctors’ opinions were based on sound scientific methodology. The trial judge acknowledged that the experts, Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer, were qualified but opined that their scientific studies and evidence were narrow and shallow, showing a preference for cohort studies and their larger sample sizes over the case studies relied on by the experts. In overturning the ruling by the trial court and discussing the studies cited by Colditz and Cramer, the appeals court stated that those studies satisfied the criteria outlined in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and also noted that size and the types of study are not the sole determinants of reliability.
As a result of the plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony being reinstated, a dispute over a material fact exists in the matter and the case will proceed.
The two cases, brought by plaintiffs Brandi Carl and Diana Balderrama, were the first two to be tried from the group of 100 lawsuits included in New Jersey’s multi-county litigation.
Excluding Epidemiological Evidence Under FRE 702 in Toxic Tort, Medical Device, and Pharmaceutical Cases
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 production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What is epidemiology? Can epidemiological studies support specific causation? When considering admissibility, does rebuttal expert evidence have to meet the same standards as the plaintiff's evidence? What factors show that an expert's opinion does not reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case? General, specific, and legal causation Role of differential diagnosis Science of epidemiology and the hierarchy of evidence Association vs. causation Bradford Hill criteria International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Assessing admissibility under FRE 702 Assist trier of fact Sufficient facts or data Product of reliable principles and methods Expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the [...]
Defending Punitive Damages Cases and Preventing Runaway Awards: New Approaches
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 plaintiff's likely strategies and themes Deciding whether to bifurcate Strategic use of pretrial motions and objections Building the defense with jury selection, jury instructions, and anchoring Using appellate and punitive damages experts Introducing subsequent remedial measures under FRE 407
Influencing the Jury Using and Objecting to Demonstrative Exhibits
Influencing the Jury Using and Objecting to Demonstrative Exhibits Developing a Visual Strategy for Trial, Recognizing Misleading or Inaccurate Exhibits, Proposed Amendments to FRE 611 Lawyers throw away an important opportunity to influence the jury if they do not offer their own demonstrative exhibits and object to misleading or inaccurate exhibits offered by their opponents. Jurors routinely create their own diagrams, charts, lists, etc. to visually organize and understand what they believe they heard and saw in the courtroom. Creating both an affirmative and defensive "visual strategy" for trial is as important as picking the theme for trial and requires planning and the proper foundation. Demonstrative exhibits are powerful tools that can be inaccurate or misleading--accidentally or intentionally. Too much, and the jury can be overwhelmed. The issue of misleading and inaccurate demonstrative exhibits and visual aids has fueled proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 6ll that could curtail their use or at least heighten the hurdles to using them. Professor Colin Miller Professor of Law University of South Carolina School of Law Justin Watkins Attorney Langdon & Emison Live CLE Webinar July 11th, 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What is the difference between an exhibit and visual aid? Are demonstratives presumed acceptable unless objected to? In what ways can demonstrative exhibits be misleading and what are best strategies for objecting? What happens if an exhibit used in depositions becomes inaccurate by the time of trial? Purposes of demonstrative evidence/aids Using demonstratives in depositions Using demonstratives at trial Foundations for demonstrative evidence Document excerpts Computer Day-in-the-life video Video/animation Experiments/demonstrations Models Objections Objection strategies Adopting opponent's exhibits Relevance, probative value Changes circumstances/not substantially similar Federal Rule of Evidence 611 Current practice Proposed amendments
Price Premium Damages in Class Actions: Establishing Whether Losses Are Capable of Measurement on a Classwide Basis
Price Premium Damages in Class Actions: Establishing Whether Losses Are Capable of Measurement on a Classwide Basis Understanding the Measure of Loss and How Economic Experts Attempt to Model Them on a Classwide Basis Consumer fraud, false advertising, and latent-defect product class action cases often seek to recover the difference between the market price actually paid and the true market price that reflects the impact of the unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice: the “price premium.” In evaluating price premium damages, plaintiff and defense experts often disagree about how and to what extent economic models are supposed to--and do--take into account both the demand and supply side of market. Separating the effect of the relevant claims from the effects of numerous other confounding factors must be done in accordance with rigorous scientific standards. In determining whether to certify proposed consumer classes, courts often evaluate price premium models proposed by plaintiff and defendant experts. This evaluation is often critical in the class certification decision as plaintiffs have the burden to demonstrate that the calculation of damages is possible on a class wide basis. Sascha Henry Partner Sheppard Mullin Hayley Reynolds Attorney Gutride Safier Jon Tomlin Senior Managing Director Ankura CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What is conjoint analysis, generally, and what are the various types of conjoint analysis? What questions must be asked to determine if survey data was obtained in accordance with rigorous scientific standards? What does it mean to take into account both the supply and demand curves in price premium analysis? Challenges to calculating but-for prices with only demand-side information and how to account for supply side factors? Introduction to price premium damages Critical role of damages models at certification stage Market simulation models Strategies for plaintiffs Strategies for defense
Combating Plaintiff Reptilian Tactics in Complex Litigation: Discovery, Voir Dire, Direct and Cross-Examination
Combating Plaintiff Reptilian Tactics in Complex Litigation: Discovery, Voir Dire, Direct and Cross-Examination Plaintiff attorneys use "reptile theory" to get larger plaintiff verdicts by appealing to the primal region of jurors' brains focused on safety and self-preservation. "Reptile" tactics seek to subtly lead the jury to believe that the defendant put all of society in danger and that a plaintiff's verdict is the only way to keep the world safe for themselves and others. Its proponents credit reptile theory for $6 billion-plus in jury verdicts, including a single $50 million verdict in a wrongful death case. To be most effective, reptilian theory tactics are deployed during every phase of a case, including discovery, opening statement, direct- and cross-examination, and closing argument. Defense attorneys must spot when reptilian tactics are being used and develop strategies for nullifying them. Listen as our authoritative panel of litigators shares how to defend against these tactics and create the best opportunity for success at trial. Beth C. Boggs Managing Partner Boggs Avellino Lach & Boggs Matthew D. Gurbach Partner Bricker Graydon Kathryn Whitlock Partner Bricker Graydon LIVE Webinar June 27th 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What is the underlying basis for "reptilian" theory trial tactics? How are plaintiffs' attorneys leveraging reptile tactics to influence jurors? How can defense attorneys counter plaintiffs' use of reptilian tactics? Reptilian tactics in litigation: how to spot them Defense strategies: from discovery through closing argument
Combating Plaintiff Reptilian Tactics in Complex Litigation: Discovery, Voir Dire, Direct and Cross-Examination
Combating Plaintiff Reptilian Tactics in Complex Litigation: Discovery, Voir Dire, Direct and Cross-Examination Plaintiff attorneys use "reptile theory" to get larger plaintiff verdicts by appealing to the primal region of jurors' brains focused on safety and self-preservation. "Reptile" tactics seek to subtly lead the jury to believe that the defendant put all of society in danger and that a plaintiff's verdict is the only way to keep the world safe for themselves and others. Its proponents credit reptile theory for $6 billion-plus in jury verdicts, including a single $50 million verdict in a wrongful death case. To be most effective, reptilian theory tactics are deployed during every phase of a case, including discovery, opening statement, direct- and cross-examination, and closing argument. Defense attorneys must spot when reptilian tactics are being used and develop strategies for nullifying them. Listen as our authoritative panel of litigators shares how to defend against these tactics and create the best opportunity for success at trial. Beth C. Boggs Managing Partner Boggs Avellino Lach & Boggs Matthew D. Gurbach Partner Bricker Graydon Kathryn Whitlock Partner Bricker Graydon LIVE Webinar June 27th 2023| 1:00PM Eastern This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What is the underlying basis for "reptilian" theory trial tactics? How are plaintiffs' attorneys leveraging reptile tactics to influence jurors? How can defense attorneys counter plaintiffs' use of reptilian tactics? Reptilian tactics in litigation: how to spot them Defense strategies: from discovery through closing argument