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.
Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs’ Strategies for Winning Certification
Managing Class Representative Discovery: Plaintiffs' Strategies for Winning Certification Preparing for Discovery Pre-Suit, Negotiating Fair Protocols, Defending Depositions, and Responding To Written Discovery Class representative discovery is an essential component of establishing Rule 23 class certification. Experienced plaintiffs' counsel will need to be well-versed in the many defense strategies for eliciting class representative testimony and discovery that could undermine the claims in a class action lawsuit and challenge class certification. Preparing for discovery begins before the case is filed, and class representatives must thoroughly understand their obligations in the discovery process. Plaintiffs’ counsel must think through and negotiate protocols related to several topics that affect the scope of discovery, including protective orders ESI protocols. Plaintiffs’ counsel must also carefully guide their class representatives through written discovery and depositions, where the class representatives’ responses are critical to the case. Listen as this panel of esteemed class action plaintiffs' lawyers shares strategies on how to best handle class representative discovery and avoid common issues that could present challenges at class certification. David Fernandes Attorney Baron & Budd Phong-Chau G. Nguyen Partner Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Now On Demand! Recorded: 4/4/2023 90 Minutes What are the most difficult issues for plaintiffs to navigate during discovery? What protocols are the most important? What types of questioning techniques might be anticipated at depositions? What can counsel do during and after a deposition if the deponent performs poorly? Selecting the named plaintiff with an eye to discovery Selecting and gathering documents before commencing the case Anticipating key defense strategies Precertification Merits Negotiating protocols and protective orders ESI Depositions Confidentiality Responding to written discovery requests Preparing for and defending depositions
Insurance Coverage for Claims Alleging Breach of Preexisting Duty: Limitations on the Eaton Vance Rule
Insurance Coverage for Claims Alleging Breach of Preexisting Duty: Limitations on the Eaton Vance Rule Determining the Source of the Insureds Obligation to Pay an Underlying Claim Liability insurance covers, among other things, an insured’s legal obligation to pay damages to a third party arising out of a claim against the insured for breach of a duty owed to that third party. But what if the damages the insured becomes liable to pay – whether by settlement or court order after a judgment – constitute nothing more than amounts the insured already had a pre-existing contractual or statutory duty to pay, irrespective of whether any claim had been made alleging a breach? This latter category of damages is generally not covered by liability insurance because the insured’s obligation to pay does not result from the third-party “claim”; rather, it results from the pre-existing contractual or statutory obligation. The distinction between covered and non-covered damages for breach of a pre-existing duty is often difficult to see and even harder to explain coherently, for attorneys and judges alike. A significant body of confusing – and sometimes inaccurate, contradictory, and inartfully worded – case law has developed on these issues. Relying on these cases, it is now relatively common for insurers to look for every opportunity to disclaim indemnity coverage for any claim seeking damages based on an alleged breach of a duty imposed by contract or statute. As a result, the “Eaton Vance rule” has expanded beyond can be justified by the policy language and moral hazard concerns from which the rule was born. Strategies exist for protecting the policyholder's right to coverage and the insurer's concerns that it is being cast as a guarantor of performance. Getting and providing the coverage that both parties contracted for requires a more careful approach than has been utilized heretofore. Listen as the panel of insurer and policyholder counsel discusses the complex issues surrounding insurance coverage for damages related to breach of contract claims, the “Eaton Vance rule,” and how to sort through imprecise and confusing language in the [...]
Environmental Litigation: Piercing the Corporate Veil, Alter Ego, and Successor Liability
Environmental Litigation Piercing the Corporate Veil, Alter Ego, and Successor Liability Environmental investigations and remediation expenses are costly. Private litigants and state and federal governments often seek viable "deep pocket" entities or high net worth individuals to pay for the cleanup costs allegedly attributable to an otherwise defunct or underfunded company's historical operations that caused the environmental contamination. In the typical scenario, the separate entity (parent company, shareholder, or successor in interest) does not own, lease, or operate the facility at issue, nor did it directly release a hazardous substance into the environment. And often, the former company was dissolved years ago and incorporated in an entirely separate state. Thus, the parent company, shareholder, or successor-in-interest is blindsided by the claims letter, lawsuit, or enforcement order--all of which require a strategic and accurate response. This type of indirect liability can be a real threat in any environmental litigation if pleaded correctly and supported by facts, and not met by a strong, well thought out and supported defense. As such, environmental litigators must be adept at using or defending against these theories of liability before they arise. Listen as our panel provides environmental litigators with an analysis of legal theories of alter ego and successor liability as they relate to environmental liabilities at cleanup sites and provides guidance on factors to consider and best practices for defending against such allegations. Daniel Riesel Principal Sive Paget & Riesel driesel@sprlaw.com Dane Warren Attorney Sive Paget & Riesel dwarren@sprlaw.com Take this CLE webinar on your own schedule. It's now on-demand! Issues to consider when faced with a litigant that seeks to pierce the veil of your corporate client or hold your client responsible for the actions of a predecessor. Factors courts consider when deciding whether to apply the alter ego and successor liability theories. Key considerations and best practices for corporations and related entities defending alter ego and successor liability claims. Overview of liability of corporate parents, shareholders, and successors under common law for environmental derelictions Piercing the corporate veil [...]
The In Pari Delicto Defense to Bankruptcy and Other Claims Against Directors, Officers, and Third Parties
The In Pari Delicto Defense to Bankruptcy and Other Claims Against Directors, Officers, and Third Parties Anticipating or Raising the Defense in Bankruptcy and Other Asset Recovery Litigation Bankruptcy trustees, receivers, creditors, assignees for the benefit of creditors, investors, and other plaintiffs in asset recovery actions often aggressively pursue claims against the management as well as outside professionals and lenders of distressed and insolvent entities, including accountants, auditors, attorneys, banks, and advisers.A significant defense for professionals and banks in such cases is the in pari delicto doctrine. When the plaintiff stands in the shoes of the debtor entity--as do bankruptcy trustees, receivers, assignees for the benefit of creditors, and some others often do--and attempts to recover for the debtor's conduct in which the debtor's officers, directors, or employees were complicit, the defendants often seek to bar recovery arguing that the plaintiff is "of equal fault" with defendants.This defense has been rapidly evolving in the past few years, and its scope varies by jurisdiction. The Madoff and MF Global litigation, among many other high-profile cases, featured this defense prominently. Additionally, insight has emerged from the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and the defense is expected to play a prominent role in the cryptocurrency bankruptcies.Listen as our authoritative panel of trial lawyers discusses recent trends in asset recovery litigation against officers, directors, and outside professionals of distressed companies, as well as banks, and the evolving scope and application of the in pari delicto defense as a potential shield to recovery by trustees, receivers, creditors, assignees for the benefit of creditors and investors. Questions Addressed: What are the trends in asset recovery litigation in which the in pari delicto defense may apply, and what are the conventional theories of liability? Is the in pari delicto defense or an asserted lack of standing a problematic obstacle to filing suit against professionals and professional firms who represented the distressed or insolvent company, or against banks and other third-party non-professionals alleged to have been complicit in the wrongdoing? What are some of the best arguments for and against the application of the defense? What are the most recent developments in case [...]
Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits
Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Learn Strategies forOpposing or Narrowing Class Certificationand Preserving Objections This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. Kevin Daly Counsel Robinson & Cole Alexander Madrid Partner McGuire Woods Michael Ruttinger Partner Tucker Ellis Robert Sparkes, III Partner K&L Gates This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences.
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery challenges counsel face when litigating wage and hour collective and class actions--from initiation through resolution of the case? What strategies have been effective in wage and hour collective and class actions for obtaining essential information with the least expense? What is the scope of discoverable evidence before and after certification of the putative class, and how can you limit or best manage discovery? When drafting discovery requests in wage and hour class and collective actions, what should employment counsel consider to ensure that the requests align with the proportionality standard? Interested in More CLE OnDemand? Click Here. Interested in this program? Click here to send us a note. Interested in this program? Click here to send [...]