Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Litigator’s Duty of Reasonable Inquiry in Rule 26(g)(3): Guiding a Client Through Discovery

June 12th, 2025|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, New Webinars|Tags: , , |

Litigator's Duty of Reasonable Inquiry in Rule 26(g)(3): Guiding a Client Through Discovery Bad things can and often do happen when lawyers over delegate e-discovery responsibility to their clients or vendors. Courts continue to express concern and exasperation over the conduct of counsel and parties in discovery and their failure to meet their affirmative obligations to make reasonable efforts to find discoverable material and that discovery responses were complete and correct when made. It can be difficult for counsel to draw bright-line distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in preserving information and in conducting discovery, but counsel is not without guidance. This panel will provide concrete examples of the oft-given advice that counsel should be "actively involved" in discovery and then follow up and validate processes. The program will discuss the role and content of checklists and how to establish that counsel took those affirmative steps. The panel will also discuss key case law in this area. Listen as this panel of experienced e-discovery attorneys and litigators demonstrates what counsel must do to meet the duty of reasonable inquiry. Ralph Losey Attorney Partner Losey John J. Rosenthal Partner Winston & Strawn Jennifer Sutherland Attorney Gilman & Bedigian  Ariana J. Tadler Founder and Managing Partner Tadler Law atadler@tadlerlaw.com A LIVE CLE Webinar! Monday, April 3, 2023 1:00pm Eastern 90 [...]

Read More

Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, New Webinars, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

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 [...]

Read More

Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement

November 16th, 2022|Categories: Featured On-Demand, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

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 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. While the Fifth Circuit has taken the textual view in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. that permits issue certification only if the class first qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3), the Ninth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits have adopted the opposite view that Rule 23(c)(4) certification does not require predominance. The Third Circuit has clarified and heightened the test in Russell v. Educ. Comm’n for Foreign Med. Graduates, 20-2128 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2021), but offers both sides [...]

Read More

Sexual Abuse Litigation and Insurance Coverage

August 19th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Featured On-Demand, New Webinars, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Insurance Coverage for Sexual Abuse Claims  Strategies | Response | Insurance Archeology CLE OnDemand Webinar Sexual abuse claims – such as those involving the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America – have resulted in verdicts and settlements in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. The Catholic church alone has paid billions to resolve claims. Verdicts in cases involving adult victims are typically lower than those involving children and teens. A December 2021 $44 million verdict to a Texas woman who was raped at a Hilton Hotel in Houston could signal that juries may be more open to larger awards in such cases. While rapists and abusers face accountability under criminal law (and sometimes under civil law as well), businesses and institutions of all shapes and sizes are increasingly finding themselves confronting claims that they bear some of the responsibility for instances of sexual molestation, abuse and harassment. Several standard types of liability insurance provide coverage for such claims. In this webinar the panel discusses the elements of this coverage and the sensitive aspects of such claims. If you answer yes to any of these questions, this webinar is for you:  Is your organization or your clients at risk of facing sexual abuse accusations? Would your organization [...]

Read More

The Trajectory of Remote eDiscovery Review in 2022

November 12th, 2021|Categories: Featured On-Demand, New Webinars, Tort Webinars|Tags: , , , , , , , |

Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar The Trajectory of Remote eDiscovery in 2022 Practical guidelines for planning the eDiscovery program for your firm or legal department based on the latest insights. Join legal industry analyst Ari Kaplan, Eric Crawley, Epiq’s managing director for global advanced solutions, Seth Eichenholtz, Director of eDiscovery at Mastercard, and Lora Ramsey, eDiscovery Manager at Walmart for a discussion about the current state of electronic discovery within corporate legal departments and the future of remote options in a post-pandemic environment. Kaplan will reveal – and the panel will discuss – findings from the Epiq-commissioned report based on the perspectives of 30 leading corporate legal eDiscovery professionals about the challenges, tactics, and best practices fueling change in this sector. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents reported that they handle some document review processes with support from their outside counsel. Sixty-three percent also utilize alternative legal services providers (ALSPs). With the near-universal deployment of remote reviewers during the pandemic, only 10 percent of the respondents reported seeing disadvantages. For many organizations, the document review process involves a combination of resources and is often driven by cost and risk. One respondent told us: “We want the lowest cost resource that offers the highest quality work, which is not always the outside law firm.” [...]

Read More
Go to Top