HB Partner Webinars on the West LegalEdcenter
Take these CLE webinars on the West LegalEdcenter platform. Each program features leading litigators in their respective fields on emerging subjects. Speakers and topics are handpicked by HB. Your organization may have already subscribed to the platform, but each session is also available for individual purpose. For questions or if you wish to propose a webinar, write to us at: Webinars@LitigationConferences.com.
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone GalleryGovernment Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? by Bryce McColskey and Sandra M. Cianflone
The Authors Bryce McColskey (bmccolskey@hallboothsmith.com) is an attorney with Hall Booth Smith, P.C., based in Jacksonville, Florida, where he focuses on medical malpractice and professional liability law. Sandra M. Cianflone (scianflone@hallboothsmith.com) is a partner in the Atlanta office of Hall Booth Smith, where she concentrates on a variety of aspects of healthcare defense and chairs the firm’s Coronavirus Task Force. She is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors of the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Government Involvement in Personal Medical Care Decisions During Outbreaks of Disease: How Far Is Too Far? "Breakthroughs in technologies, our knowledge of diseases and mutations, and advances in treatment options have been remarkable and have drastically reduced fatality rates from disease outbreaks. However, regardless of medical achievements, rapid changes in any field open the door to renewed debates over different laws and individual rights." Abstract: The coronavirus pandemic is the latest health issue to raise the question of government’s involvement (or interference) with an individual’s control over their own healthcare and medical treatment. In this article, the authors, two health care and professional liability attorneys, discuss the intersection of law and medicine with a review of medical mandates, the impact of advances in science and medicine, and where role of government to protect public health intersects (or collides) with personal healthcare choices. Their focus is on governmental response to the coronavirus pandemic, and not the recent landmark case dealing with choice. But add to the equation the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the “government as healthcare [...]
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner
The Cannabis Employment Law Patchwork with Keya Denner Maryland and Missouri are the latest states to legalize recreational cannabis for people 21 and older. Voters came out in favor of legalization in the November 2022 midterms, bringing the total recreational jurisdictions to 22 states and the District of Columbia. Voters in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Arkansas, however, decided against recreational marijuana. It remains legal for medical reasons in all five states. In the employment context, both recreational and medicinal uses raise questions about protections for employees who use the drug legally. Which states are enacting those protections? What do multi-state employers need to do? What about drug testing? As a requirement to get a job and as a requirement to keep your job? What about this: who is going to say whether a worker is impaired? Will there really be hall monitors trained in spotting your high? For answers to these questions and more, listen to my interview with Keya Denner, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP. Keya is an experienced litigator who has been practicing labor and employment law for almost 20 years. Few attorneys nationwide match Keya’s expertise in the area of legal cannabis and its impact on the workplace. He has counseled Fortune 500 companies in the retail, hospitality, and global logistics spaces to create compliant policies and better understand the ever-changing legal landscape brought about by the legalization of cannabis across the United States. Most recently, Keya was named co-chair along with this colleague Ashley Orler of the firm’s new practice group focused on cannabis and employee substance abuse law. Keya received his J.D., cum laude, from Seton Hall University School of Law, J.D., cum laude, and his B.A., also cum laude, from Boston University. This podcast is the audio companion [...]
How Insurance Companies Defraud Their Policyholders, and What Courts and Legislators Should Do About It
The Authors Robert D. Chesler (rchesler@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill's Newark office. Bob represents policyholders in a broad variety of coverage claims against their insurers and advises companies with respect to their insurance programs. Bob is also a member of Anderson Kill's Cyber Insurance Recovery group. Bob has served as the attorney of record in more than 30 reported insurance decisions, representing clients including General Electric, Ingersoll-Rand, Westinghouse, Schering, Chrysler, and Unilever, as well as many small businesses including gas stations and dry cleaners. He has received numerous professional accolades, including a top-tier ranking for Insurance Litigation: New Jersey in Chambers USA: American's Leading Lawyers for Business, which dubs him a "dominant force in coverage disputes" and cites a client who calls him "a dean of the insurance Bar; one of the brightest in writing about and analyzing insurance coverage." Amy Weiss (aweiss@andersonkill.com) is a law clerk pending admission in Anderson Kill’s New York office. She focuses her practice on insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders. While attending the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Amy worked as a Summer Associate at Anderson Kill and a Judicial Intern for the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She served as Senior Articles Editor for the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, participated in the Cardozo Visual & Performing Arts Law Field Clinic, was a teaching assistant for the Lawyering & Legal writing course, and was a research assistant for Professor Stewart E. Sterk. Amy received the Dean’s Merit Scholarship and graduated with Honors. Jade W. Sobh (jsobh@andersonkill.com) is an attorney in Anderson Kill’s New York office. Jade focuses his practice on both insurance recovery, exclusively on behalf of policyholders, as well as Government [...]
Potential Pitfalls with Adult-Use Cannabis: What Both Employers and Employees Should Know
The Authors Adam R. Dolan (adolan@gllawgroup.com) is a partner with Gfeller Laurie LLP, a tested litigator with a multifaceted practice, he has extensive experience handling catastrophic transportation, general liability, and products liability matters. He is a frequent writer and speaker on topics related to the cannabis industry. Kaylee E. Navarra (knavarra@gllawgroup.com) is an associate with Gfeller Laurie LLP where she works on matters involving commercial disputes, bad faith/ extracontractual liability, and insurance coverage. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Potential Pitfalls with Adult-Use Cannabis: What Both Employers and Employees Should Know "Employers may also take action when the employee, while working, manifests specific articulable symptoms of cannabis impairment that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the employee’s tasks or duties and/or the employee, while working, manifests specific articulable symptoms of cannabis impairment that interfere with the employer’s obligation to provide a safe and healthy workplace as required by state and federal workplace safety laws." Abstract: Recreational cannabis use for adults is legal in 21 states, having made its way eastward from Western jurisdictions that first addressed the issue. But these laws govern personal use during personal time. While they generally prohibit discrimination based on such use, these laws do not greenlight consumption at work or going to work under the influence. But with so many jurisdictions and job types, and variance among state laws, there aren’t simple answers. This is especially true for employers who conduct business nationwide, and because cannabis continues to be a Schedule I substance on the federal Controlled Substances Act. What rights and remedies do companies and workers have to resolve disputes? Are [...]
The New European Unified Patent Court with Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier
What's the new European patent court mean to global innovators? The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing? For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with creative, technically robust, and business-oriented patent strategies. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy [...]
Reimagining the Administration of Justice with Qudsiya Naqui of Pew Charitable Trust
Before COVID-19 came to America in early 2020, “going to court” literally meant putting on your shoes and walking into a courthouse, typically a large building with courtrooms inside, and people in robes and business suits and, in some cases, more restrictive attire. Stoked by necessity, courts sprinted toward solutions for keeping the wheels of justice spinning while also keeping everyone away from each other. Until then it didn’t seem possible that attorneys could or would appear before judges via digital screens, like George Jetson getting yelled at by Mr. Spacely over some hilarious mishap at the sprocket factory. Pew Charitable Trust concluded an in-depth study of the courts with the 2021 release of a report, “How Courts Embraced Technology, Met the Pandemic Challenge, and Revolutionized Their Operations.” After examining emergency orders from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and court approaches to virtual hearings, e-filing, and digital notarization, the researchers wrote that it was a time for "reimagining how to administer justice.” Was the adoption of technology effective? Were there any hiccups? Was technology widely embraced? Were the effects of new efficiencies enjoyed evenly across the socio-economic spectrum? Do we think courts will continue to reimagine how they administer justice without the crushing pressure of widespread disease? Listen to my interview with Qudsiya Naqui who leads Pew’s research at the intersection of technology and civil legal system reform. In this role, she evaluates and tests new technologies to ensure that they further efficiency, equity, and transparency in the legal process. This work is part of Pew’s Civil Justice Modernization Project. Before joining Pew, Qudsiya designed and implemented immigration, housing, and disaster recovery legal services programs at Equal Justice Works and the Vera Institute of Justice. She began her legal career representing immigrant women and girls seeking relief from deportation. Qudsiya holds a [...]
New Year, New Rules: FTC Proposes Sweeping Ban on Noncompete Agreements
The Author Andreya DiMarco (adimarco@hatfieldschwartzlaw.com) is counsel with Hatfield Schwartz Law Group LLC where she focuses on employment law and transactional matters. She has defended clients in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies, including the EEOC and DCR. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. New Year, New Rules: FTC Proposes Sweeping Ban on Noncompetes "This is the FTC’s first attempt to ban non-compete agreements and strong opposition to the Proposed Rule as well as challenges regarding the scope of the FTC’s rule-making authority are likely to arise especially given the tremendous impact a retroactive and absolute non-compete ban would have. .... [P]otential litigation over the FTC’s authority to issue and enforce such a rule may cause further delays.... Moreover, the Proposed Rule is full of ambiguity which will likely be challenged." Abstract: On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would ban the use of noncompete agreements between employers and workers and would create an affirmative obligation for employers to void existing noncompete agreements. The Proposed Rule would also prohibit contractual clauses in other agreements or employment policies that have a similar effect. The Proposed Rule applies categorically to all workers, including independent contractors, without regard to a worker’s earnings or job function. This article discusses the nuances of the Proposed Rule as well as the legal and practical impact it will have if it is adopted. Download the article now!
Supplier Beware: The DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chains
The Author Jennifer M. Driscoll (jdriscoll@rc.com) is counsel with Robinson+Cole in New York where she focuses on investigations, litigation, arbitration, mergers, and counseling. She has extensive experience in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive industries. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Supplier Beware: DOJ & FTC Investigating Manufacturing & Supply Chain Issues “Although competitors may attend trade association meetings, the company representative in attendance should be well versed on the line between lawful discussions and ruses to disguise unlawful collusion in violation of the Sherman Act.” Abstract: Challenged by the pandemic, the global supply chain has generated a heightened amount of scrutiny for its impact on the economy, the labor market, the delivery of goods and services, and national security. Attention from the Biden administration portends an era when the federal government will shine a spotlight on the supply chain to root out misconduct. In this article, the author reviews recent supply chain disruptions and reactions from the DOJ and FTC, as well as the government’s efforts to support competition in the labor markets by eliminating noncompete agreements in employment contracts. Finally, she discusses proactive steps companies can take to mitigate the risk that they will find themselves the subject of a government investigation. Download the article now!
Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend
The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder with CMBG3 Law and a recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. In his environmental and toxic torts practice, he represents companies ranging in size from small shops to the Fortune 100. John is also a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Medical Monitoring and PFAS Litigation—A Significant Growing Trend "The arguments in favor of medical monitoring as a cause of action in lawsuits stem from the notion that having such programs funded by allegedly tortious companies promotes the public health benefit of early detection, which in turn often results in lower health care costs to plaintiffs and society at large." Abstract: Medical monitoring as a tort claim is a hot-button issue in toxic torts, personal injury, and product liability litigation. The ubiquity of PFAS chemical compounds and the real and potential harm to health and the environment they create make examination of the medical monitoring debate specific to this burgeoning litigation worthy of individual attention. This article provides an explanation of PFAS, a brief overview of medical monitoring claims, how PFAS medical monitoring claims have impacted the litigation thus far, and what legal cases are pending that could alter the course of traditional medical monitoring litigation in the future. Download the article now!
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) GalleryThe Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies)
The Author Edgar C. Gentle III (egentle@gtandslaw.com) is founder and managing partner of Gentle, Turner, Sexton & Harbison LLC in Birmingham, Alabama, where he focuses on complex commercial litigation, mass torts, and class actions. He also serves as a court appointed neutral and settlement administrator. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Its Nationwide Status, Rationale, and Practical Application (A Possible Dynamic Tort Remedy for Long-Term Tort Maladies) "States that allow medical monitoring do so when a group of claimants has been exposed to a known hazardous substance, such as lead, or a dangerous product, such as football helmet concussions, or air decompression in an airplane, through the conduct of the Defendant, with the claimants therefore being at increased risk of contracting disease. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years, to see if they contract the disease linked to the toxic substance or dangerous product. Thus, medical monitoring recognizes the long-term harmful nature of toxins and man-made products, thereby matching a remedy with the malady." Abstract: The author administers six mass tort settlements with a medical component, including two with medical monitoring. This article reviews the status and history of medical monitoring, known claimant medical monitoring participation rates, the rationale for the remedy, arguments for and against its implementation, and its execution in practice. The author suggests a more holistic medical monitoring remedy, which includes not only testing/or disease but paying claimants for personal injury when they get sicker later, from a capped fund and under an agreed payment matrix, to provide [...]
Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves?
The Author Charlie Kingdollar spent his career as emerging issues officer for a major global insurance company, tracking hundreds of future risks like those discussed in this article. Charlie is also a valued member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Will a New Wave of New Environmental/Toxic Tort Litigation and Claims Upend Insurance Industry Environmental Reserves? "PFAS chemicals are commonly called “forever chemicals,” because once released into the environment they can take hundreds or even thousands of years to break down." "Estimates that the ultimate costs of [these and other] environmental claims will land between $45 billion and $55 billion is terribly low. Maybe I’m missing something (always a possibility). If not, the insurance industry is in for a rude awakening." Abstract: To remain profitable and viable, the insurance and reinsurance industry must rely on estimated forecasts of potential claims many years out to establish an appropriate level of reserves. They rely on data from rating agencies and, based on these estimates, ratchet their reserves up or down accordingly. In past years, major and once unforeseen developments like massive asbestos and environmental litigation provided urgent reasons to cast an especially critical eye on the adequacy of industry reserves. In this article, the author explains why it is that time again. In light of several potentially calamitous emerging global liabilities he reviews here, particularly if they land with the impact he fears they might, the author believes the insurance industry and its policyholders may be in for a jolt a few short years from now. [...]
Autonomous Vehicles: The New Technology Driving the Litigation Conversation
The Authors Cort T. Malone (cmalone@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in the New York and Stamford offices of Anderson Kill and practices in the Insurance Recovery and the Corporate and Commercial Litigation Departments. An experienced litigator, he focuses on insurance coverage litigation and dispute resolution, with an emphasis on commercial general liability insurance, directors and officers insurance, employment practices liability insurance, advertising injury insurance, and property insurance issues. John M. Leonard (jleonard@andersonkill.com) is a shareholder in Anderson Kill’s New York, New York, office, where he handles a full spectrum of insurance coverage matters, such as business interruption losses, D&O and E&O, commercial general liability, environmental liability. Joshua A. Zelen (jzelen@andersonkill.com) is a law clerk pending admission in Anderson Kill’s New York office. He focuses his practice on insurance recovery. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Autonomous Vehicles: The New Technology Driving the Litigation Conversation "The AEV Act requires a policyholder’s insurance company to cover third-party damage caused by a self-driving automated vehicle. A policy may not exclude such damages, except for damages suffered as a direct result of software alterations made without the policyholder’s knowledge, or failure to install safety-critical software updates." Abstract: So far, Congress has not been able to pass regulations governing the emergence of self-driving or autonomous vehicles. Twenty-one states and the United Kingdom are leading the way. As more of these vehicles take to the highway implications will emerge for the insurance industry. Auto insurance policies will have to determine how to insure against losses caused by nonhuman operators, commercial general liability policies will be affected when technology developers and car makers are [...]
Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum
The Authors Amber is Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, and is a trial lawyer who has extensive experience representing and advising clients in traditional labor relations, such as collective bargaining, representation elections, decertification elections, unfair labor practice charges, arbitrating grievances, contract administration and interpretation, and union avoidance strategies. Amber’s litigation experience includes regularly representing clients in wage and hour collective and class actions, trade secrets and post-employment restrictive covenant disputes, and complex employment discrimination. As a part of Amber’s partnership with clients to avoid litigation, she frequently conducts and coordinates sensitive corporate investigations, and provides training presentations for clients on a multitude of topics. Kurt helps businesses of all sizes solve their complex labor and employment challenges. He counsels clients on all aspects of labor-management relations, including representation elections, collective bargaining and strikes and lockouts, and also advises clients in strategic employment and human relations matters. Kurt litigates labor and employment cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts around the country and before the NLRB and EEOC. Kurt is a recognized thought leader in the area of traditional labor-management relations. He has been recognized as a leader in Labor and Employment by Chambers USA Virginia and as a 2022 Top 10 Labor Lawyer by Benchmark Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Labor Organizing in Retail: Conditions Remain for Continued Momentum "The political and social issues of the past few years, inflation, the looming recession, job security, wages, and pandemic-related frustration/unhappiness are just a few of the countless reasons cited for the boom in union support/approval." [...]
Data Driven Law
Data-Driven Legal Guidance Ed Walters Talks to Tom Hagy for the Emerging Litigation Podcast Interview SPEAKERS Tom Hagy, Host, Emerging Litigation Podcast Ed Walters, CEO & Founder, Fastcase (see complete bio at end of this document) PODCAST https://litigationconferences.com/data-driven-legal-guidance-with-ed-walters/ Tom Hagy Hello and welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Hagy. Today we're going to talk about the weather, but only for a minute. Mostly we're going to talk about big data. I don't know how many of you are weather nerds, you know you're out there. But you may have the Weather Channel app on your phones. Those of you who do might have noticed a few years ago, it became an IBM Business. You might ask why? I'll tell you. Deep Thunder is the name of IBM's weather monitoring and forecasting system that combines Big Data, supercomputers and physics to create highly localized and accurate weather profiles and predictions for a given area. The launch of deep thunder came about after IBM first invested in the Weather Channel as part of a multibillion-dollar foray into the Internet of Things creating a division bearing that name, IBM and the weather channel. So their collaboration would help industries quote, operationalize their understanding of the impact of weather on business outcomes. That makes sense when you think about the economic impact of snowstorms and hurricanes, or even less dramatic but vitally important weather conditions like rainfall to farms, snowfall to ski resorts, adverse weather that keeps shoppers away or slows down transportation, delaying the arrival of goods and even humans. Think about outdoor products, machinery and building materials which are built for say 100-degree weather. But what happens when it's 120 degrees. So many industries need good weather, something that's getting less predictable with climate change. It's also [...]
Modernizing Our Court System (but Don’t Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel
The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it." This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ... Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and online forms software. He launched courtonline.us and onlinejudge.us to consolidate his processes for the public. Judge Schlegel has received numerous awards and accolades, like the National Center for State Courts' 26th Annual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. He was the American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Rebel. And he received the Fastcase 50 Award for his innovative approaches to the administration of justice. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a prosecutor and litigator. Judge Schlegel graduated with honors from Loyola [...]
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 [...]
Greatly Exaggerated: The Impact of Bankruptcy on Mass Torts with Jennifer Hoekstra
When large companies face massive mass tort litigation, one way they can survive is to file for bankruptcy protection and reorganize. 3M recently put its Aearo Technologies subsidiary into bankruptcy in the face of more than 230,000 claims that's its defective earplugs caused hearing loss. When it came to filing bankruptcy 3M said Aearo was solely responsible for the product. But for several years of litigation 3M argued that it, as the parent, was solely responsible, not its various subsidiaries. That was a strategy that was beneficial to the company in multidistrict litigation. Why did 3M suddenly change course? What impact does bankruptcy have on claimants? Could corporations use bankruptcy law to neuter mass tort litigation for all eternity? And how did the strategy sit with the federal magistrate judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation? Joining me to discuss this incredibly complex litigation is Jennifer M. Hoekstra, a partner with Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz. Jennifer has been involved in all varieties of complex litigation since 2007, focusing on mass torts, drug and device litigation, and others. She has a J.D. from Tulane, which she earned while also completing a certificate in Environmental Law. She has actively served as trial counsel or an integral member of the trial team in several of the 3M Earplug trials securing nearly $300 million in compensatory damages for military veterans. Jennifer shared her insights on the intersection of complex mass torts and bankruptcy, an intersection that wasn't originally on her roadmap. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to [...]
Under Pressure: Courts and Lawyers Trying to Deal With It with Diana Manning
The pressure on trial lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, and court systems is only increasing. The backlog of cases in New Jersey, for example, nearly quadrupled between February 2020 and 2021, the first year of the pandemic, according to NJ Spotlight News (NJSN). The state is also facing a historic shortage of jurists, NJSN reported, “leading to overworked judges, huge case backlogs and nearly 7,000 defendants in jail without bail, some 500 of them for more than two years despite a law that essentially requires a trial within two years for anyone detained." As reported by NJSN, one court official told the state Assembly Budget Committee about the impact of the pandemic on the court system: “Buildings were closed to most in-person trials for more than a year, although other proceedings continued virtually. The business closures and high unemployment led to a housing crisis that resulted in more than 46,000 pending cases that involve landlord-tenant issues . . . . But with all courts open and staff back to work in person, it is impossible to eliminate the backlog of cases with so many open judge seats.” The problem is attributed to the state Senate, where the process is mired, even though the governor is making appointments. According to the National Counsel for State Courts, backlogs at one third of U.S. courts increased by 5%. It would have been worse had courts not held virtual hearings. Using the Court Statistic Project database, the numbers reveal in stark terms the impact the pandemic had in the year it came to America. Dispositions dropped from 43M in 2019 to 28M in 2020. Bench trials fell from 3M in 2019 to under 2M in 2020. Jury trials plummeted from 49K in 2019 to less than 19K in 2020. The Washington Post reported that the [...]
Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin
The Author Jonathan Rubin (jrubin@moginrubin.com) is Co-Founder and Partner of MoginRubin LLP, a boutique antitrust, mergers and acquisitions, and class action law firm. Since 2001, he has focused his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. Rubin is a member of the Editorial Board of Advisors for the Journal of Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track? "The failure to appropriately adjust the patent system to accommodate the competitive circumstances created when patents are incorporated into standards undermines the purposes of the standard-setting enterprise and impairs the utility and proliferation of standardized technologies. Without a course correction among the judiciary, the United States risks finding itself as a less desirable jurisdiction for pro-growth and pro-competitive patenting and standard-setting activities." Abstract: A consensus at the intersection of patent and anti-trust law was achieved after a series of decisions finding that in some circumstances owners of standard essential patents (SEPs) have an antitrust duty to deal with willing licensees. Beginning in 2017, however, the Department of Justice derailed U.S. policy by undermining the role and usefulness of antitrust for policing abuses of the standard setting process. This article traces the emergence of the consensus, its abrogation by the DOJ, and the resulting effects and prospects for the future. Download the article now! Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back [...]
Lawyers for Good with Tara Trask and Jason Flom
If you're feeling bad about being a lawyer, or just maybe tingling with the holiday spirit of giving back, this episode is for you. Listen to three professionals (well, maybe two "professionals") who deeply admire for the legal profession, the important role attorneys play in society, and all the potential they have to make the world a better place. When there is strife, there is a supporting organization, and with them are lawyers. Wrongful convictions. Voting rights. Environmental protection. The rights of women, people of color, workers, LGBTQ, immigrants, asylum seekers. Lawyers are in a unique position to do something about all of this. And they do. And we hope more will. Join me as I interview nationally acclaimed trial consultant Tara Trask and music industry star-maker Jason Flom. Tara Trask is the President of Trask Consulting, a boutique litigation strategy, jury research and trial consulting firm. Tara focuses complex commercial litigation, from intellectual property to antitrust, from products liability to insurance, and oil and gas. She has extensive experience assisting institutions and individuals in matters involving regulatory enforcement and white-collar defense. Tara has been involved in more 450 jury trials. Music industry executive Jason Flom is CEO of Lava Records, Lava Music Publishing, and Lava Media, LLC. He is former CEO at Atlantic Records, Virgin Records and Capitol Music Group. Jason is personally responsible for launching acts such as Katy Perry and Greta Van Fleet, and discovering and developing the likes of Matchbox 20, The Corrs, Tory Amos, Jewel, and Stone Temple Pilots. The New Yorker described Jason as “one of the most successful record men of the past 20 years. He's also committed to doing good. Through his Lava for Good company, Jason hosts the hit podcast Wrongful Conviction, now in its ninth season, which features interviews with people who [...]
- PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella Gallery
PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella
PFAS Litigation—A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits: What Are the Legal and Business Risks to Companies by John Gardella
The Author John P. Gardella (jgardella@cmbg3.com) is a shareholder and Chief Services Officer at CMBG3 Law, where he also chairs the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management and Consulting and ESG practice groups. John is the latest addition to the Editorial Board of Directors for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world. PFAS Litigation A Historical Overview and the Growing Trend in Consumer Fraud Lawsuits "It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer goods sector evaluate their PFAS risk and fully understand the legal arguments that plaintiffs could make against companies in litigation." Abstract: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 12,000 man-made compounds. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by DuPont, and Scotchgard, produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are also bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. This article explains why PFAS are of concern to citizens, media, and legislators; what legal risks they pose to corporations; and the recent surge in consumer fraud litigation. The article examines the legal theories at issue in the PFAS consumer fraud cases, as well as the potential damages that can stem from the cases to corporations. Questions addressed include: What do state and federal regulations say about PFAS in drinking water? If your company doesn't use [...]
Data-Driven Legal Guidance with Ed Walters
Today we’re going to talk about the weather. But only for a minute. Mostly we’re going to talk about the use of big data in the practice of law. There is a reason IBM acquired the digital assets of The Weather Channel, and it's not because they are climate nerds. They bought it to put weather data to work to “operationalize [the] understanding of the impact of weather on business outcomes.” Think about the economic impact of snowstorms, hurricanes, and even less dramatic weather conditions, or the impact on the durability of manufacturing or building materials as temperatures rise or fall outside the norm. While we all crave meteorological precision, we also crave precision when making legal and business decisions. Clients ask questions like these all the time: What is our case worth? What size award will we get? Where should I file? Will the judge grant summary judgment? Should I even bring this suit? Lawyers will draw on experience to offer their best advice, providing ranges followed by caveats and usually preceded by the most lawyerly of lawyer answers: “It depends.” As my guest points out, lawyers also get business-related questions. Business-related answers may begin with "it depends," but must end with a number. When a CEO asks how much revenue your project will generate, "more" is not the answer they're looking for. I know. I've tried. Lawyers who seek greater precision in their predictions can take comfort in the increasing sophistication of analytical tools that can evaluate massive troves of data and account for myriad variables. Not only are we seeing advances in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and language processing, but there is greater access to important litigation-related data – BIG DATA – than ever before. Using new technologies to comb through millions of records – [...]
Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Certification: Reconciling the Conflict With the Predominance Requirement
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 plenty to consider. The remaining circuits are uncommitted, leaving the district courts to address the matter.Listen as our panel of experienced class action litigators analyzes the varying circuit court positions on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes and the implications of practitioners' decisions when pursuing or opposing class certification. Outline The emergence of issue classes under Rule 23(c)(4) What is an issue class? How are they being strategically used? Where are the grey areas? Key court decisions [...]
PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella
These stubborn chemicals are everywhere. But when they find their way into products, shouldn't someone tell consumers? Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) are a family of more 12,000 manmade compounds. That's a huge family. Most people would recognize the brand names Teflon, produced by Dupont and Scotchgard produced by 3M. They also go by the nickname “forever chemicals” because they are highly persistent and mobile in the environment and the human body. In addition to bodily injury and environmental pollution litigation, plaintiffs are bringing suits against companies for claiming their products and the making of their products are safe and green. New consumer lawsuits seeking millions in damages are targeting oral hygiene products -- like a recent case involving dental floss -- cosmetics, apparel, and food packaging. Listen to my interview with environmental lawyer John Gardella of CMBG3 Law who discusses why PFAS concern citizens, media and legislators, what legal risks corporations face, and why we're seeing a surge in consumer fraud litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. (actual size) Tom Hagy Litigation Enthusiast and Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast Home Page LinkedIn PFAS Consumer Fraud Litigation with John Gardella John Gardella is a Shareholder and recognized thought leader on PFAS issues. He is licensed to practice in Massachusetts and Tennessee. A seasoned trial attorney with over 75 verdicts, John is the Chair of the firm’s PFAS, Environmental, Risk Management & Consulting, and ESG practice groups. His thought leadership [...]