In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Cort Malone and John Leonard discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, and insurance coverage considerations and rulings.
In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Dennis J. Artese, Ethan Middlebrooks, and Thomas Dupont and professional engineer, Kenneth R. Quigley discuss permutations of policy language and state law that may affect coverage for damage caused by underground climate change, including how state law treats anti-concurrent causation clauses, whether “human-caused” exceptions to earth movement exclusions may apply to underground climate change, and whether “abrupt collapse” exceptions to exclusions for building collapse may apply when undetected structural damage triggered by underground climate change triggers collapse.
Every week, the PFAS litigation and regulatory landscape changes dramatically. The EPA presses forward full steam ahead with numerous PFAS regulations, while the states have proposed hundreds of pieces of legislation related to PFAS in the last three years. Meanwhile, class action litigation, environmental pollution litigation, and greenwashing suits are being filed against companies at a dramatically increasing rate year after year. In this CLE webinar, CMBG3 Law attorney John Gardella discusses the latest on regulatory and litigation issues related to PFAS and how they will impact corporations.
The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.
Robinson+Cole attorney Blair Robinson and knowledge management leader Liz Salsedo discuss how attorneys and legal staff can adapt to AI by taking a practical approach to governance, addressing its potential and attendant risks, legislative and regulatory considerations, and how to incorporate AI most responsibly into their legal practice or business.
On this CLE webinar, Duane Morris LLP Attorneys Alex W. Karasik, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and George J. Schaller discuss two novel artificial intelligence lawsuits, recent governmental guidance related to AI use, the business risks associated with AI, and mitigation 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 [...]
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 [...]
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, [...]
