Source: http://www.pli.edu/Content/Treatise/Product_Liability_Litigation_Current_Law/_/N-4lZ1z13ibr?ID=56643&t%20=WFZ0_8LBS2
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 08:24:13
Document Index: 99580102

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 11', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 17', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 21', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 24', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', 'arty27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 27', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 29', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 33', '§ 34', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 36', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', 'arty38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', 'arty38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 38', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 39', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 40', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 42', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43', '§ 43']

PLI: Treatises - Product Liability Litigation: Current Law, Strategies and Best Practices Login
Product Liability Litigation: Current Law, Strategies and Best Practices by Lise T. Spacapan, Stephanie A. Scharf, Traci A. Braun, Sarah R. Marmor
Recent Trends in Product Claims and Product Defenses
Lori Leskin ~ Kaye Scholer LLPAngela Vicari ~ Kaye Scholer LLP
Recasting Product Liability Claims As Consumer Fraud Cases--Plaintiff's Perspective
Stephen Tillery ~ Korein Tillery LLC
§ 2:1 : Defective Product Claims Without Serious Physical Injury2-2§ 2:1.1 : Generally2-2§ 2:1.2 : Pediatric Paxil Litigation2-2§ 2:1.3 : “Light” Cigarette Litigation2-4§ 2:1.4 : State Consumer Fraud Acts2-4§ 2:2 : Filing Under Consumer Fraud Acts—Availability of Class Action Procedure2-5§ 2:2.1 : Traditional Products Liability Cases—No Certification As Class Actions2-5§ 2:2.2 : Consumer Fraud Act Cases Certified As Class Actions2-6§ 2:2.3 : Class Action Law and Procedure2-7§ 2:3 : Pre-Filing Considerations2-9§ 2:3.1 : Do State Laws Allow Products Claims to Be Recast Under Other Statutes?2-10§ 2:3.2 : Do State Consumer Protection Acts Provide for a Private Right of Action?2-10§ 2:3.3 : Pleading a “Deception” or an “Unfairness” Claim2-10[A] : Deception Claims2-11[B] : Unfairness Claims2-12§ 2:3.4 : Damages2-15[A] : Actual Damages2-15[A][1] : Recovery for Purely Economic Loss2-15[A][2] : Measurement of Actual Damages—Benefit of the Bargain and Diminution in Value2-15[A][3] : Excepting Damage Claims for Personal Injury/Wrongful Death2-16[B] : Punitive Damages2-17§ 2:3.5 : Attorney’s Fees2-17§ 2:3.6 : Statute of Limitations2-18§ 2:4 : Claim Pursuant to State Consumer Fraud Act Despite Serious Physical Injuries2-19§ 2:5 : Conclusion2-21
Recasting Product Liability Claims As Consumer Fraud Cases--Defendant's Perspective
Craig C Martin ~ Jenner & BlockAdam C.G. Ringguth ~ Jenner & Block LLP
§ 3:1.4 : Recasting Products Liability Claims As Consumer Fraud Claims3-8
§ 3:2.2 : Standing to Sue3-10
[A] : Generally3-10
Game-Changers: Defending Products Cases with Child Plaintiffs
Rebecca S Herbig ~ Bowman & Brooke LLPSandra Giannone-Ezell ~ Bowman and Brooke LLP
Preemption Defenses
Alan Untereiner ~ Robbins Russell
§ 5:1 : Overview5-1§ 5:2 : Express Preemption5-3§ 5:2.1 : Generally5-3§ 5:2.2 : Litigation Strategies in Express Preemption Cases5-3§ 5:2.3 : Specialized Canons of Construction in Express Preemption Cases5-5§ 5:2.4 : Savings Clauses5-7§ 5:3 : Implied Preemption5-8§ 5:3.1 : Generally5-8§ 5:3.2 : Litigation Strategies in Implied Preemption Cases5-9§ 5:4 : Agency Preemption5-11§ 5:5 : The Supreme Court’s Recent Preemption Decisions5-13§ 5:5.1 : Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee5-13§ 5:5.2 : Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine5-14§ 5:5.3 : Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC5-15§ 5:5.4 : Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.5-16§ 5:5.5 : Altria Group, Inc. v. Good5-18§ 5:5.6 : Wyeth v. Levine5-19§ 5:6 : Conclusion5-21
Pearson N Bownas ~ Jones DayMark Herrmann ~ Jones Day
§ 6:1 : Overview6-2§ 6:2 : Class Action Basics6-4§ 6:2.1 : Generally6-4§ 6:2.2 : “Threshold” Requirements for Class Certification6-5[A] : Ascertainable Class6-5[B] : Representative’s Membership in the Proposed Class6-7[C] : Claim That Is Not Moot6-7§ 6:2.3 : Rule 23(a)6-8[A] : Generally6-8[B] : Numerosity6-9[C] : Commonality6-9[D] : Typicality6-9[E] : Adequacy6-9§ 6:2.4 : Rule 23(b)6-10§ 6:2.5 : A Subclass Must Individually Satisfy Rule 236-12§ 6:2.6 : Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co. and the Relationship Between Rule 23 and State Rules Regarding Class Certification6-13§ 6:3 : Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Product Liability Class Actions6-15§ 6:3.1 : Generally6-15§ 6:3.2 : Class Action Fairness Act’s Jurisdictional, Removal, and Appeal Provisions6-16[A] : Expanded Diversity Jurisdiction6-16[B] : Exceptions6-17[C] : Liberalized Removal and Appeal Provisions6-18§ 6:3.3 : Other Sources of Diversity Jurisdiction Over Class Actions6-19§ 6:4 : Moving to Dismiss the Named Plaintiff’s Individual Claims6-19§ 6:5 : Moving to Dismiss the Class Allegations6-20§ 6:6 : Precertification Discovery6-22§ 6:6.1 : Generally6-22§ 6:6.2 : Differences Between Named Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Claims6-22§ 6:6.3 : Bifurcation of Discovery6-23§ 6:6.4 : Scheduling6-24§ 6:7 : Communicating with Class Members6-24§ 6:8 : Moving for Summary Judgment on the Named Plaintiff’s Claims6-25§ 6:9 : Prevailing on the Class Certification Decision6-26§ 6:9.1 : Generally6-26§ 6:9.2 : “Triability” Arguments Against Class Certification6-27[A] : Generally6-27[B] : Individual Issues Secondary to Predominating Class Issues6-30[C] : Rule 23(c)(4)(A) Issue Certification6-31[D] : Choice-of-Law Issues6-31[E] : Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin6-33§ 6:9.3 : Due Process Arguments Against Class Certification6-35§ 6:9.4 : Other Arguments Against Certification6-36[A] : Immaturity6-36[B] : Improper Expert Testimony Supporting Certification6-37§ 6:10 : Pretrial Post-Certification Relief: Decertification and Appeal6-38§ 6:10.1 : Generally6-38§ 6:10.2 : Decertification6-38§ 6:10.3 : Appeal6-39§ 6:11 : Notice and Opt-Out6-40§ 6:12 : Trying a Product Liability Class Action6-42
Class Action Developments Overseas
Harvey L. Kaplan ~ Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.William J Crampton ~ Shook Hardy & Bacon LLPMarc Shelley ~ Shook Hardy Bacon LLP
[B] : Standing7-5
§ 7:2.2 : Securities Forerunner7-9
§ 7:3 : Australia and Canada7-10
§ 7:3.1 : Australia7-10
§ 7:3.2 : Canada7-14
§ 7:4 : England and Wales7-17
§ 7:5 : Africa7-19
§ 7:5.1 : Nigeria7-19
§ 7:5.2 : South Africa7-20
§ 7:6 : Israel7-21
§ 7:7 : Europe7-23
§ 7:7.1 : Overview7-23
§ 7:7.2 : Belgium7-24
§ 7:7.3 : Bulgaria7-25
§ 7:7.4 : Denmark, Norway, and Sweden7-25
§ 7:7.5 : Finland7-27
§ 7:7.6 : France7-28
§ 7:7.7 : Italy7-29
§ 7:7.8 : Lithuania7-31
§ 7:7.9 : Malta7-31
§ 7:7.10 : Poland7-32
§ 7:8 : European Union7-33
§ 7:9 : Latin America7-35
§ 7:9.1 : Overview7-35
§ 7:9.2 : Argentina7-35
§ 7:9.3 : Brazil7-36
§ 7:9.6 : Ecuador7-39
§ 7:9.7 : Mexico7-41
§ 7:9.8 : Peru7-42
§ 7:10 : Asia7-43
§ 7:10.1 : Overview7-43
§ 7:10.2 : People’s Republic of China7-43
§ 7:10.3 : Hong Kong7-46
§ 7:10.4 : Japan7-47
§ 7:10.5 : Korea7-48
Joseph Petrosinelli ~ Williams & Connolly LLP
Scientific Advances--Potential Impact on Medical Monitoring
Jill M. Hutchison ~ Jenner & Block LLPStacy Jakobe ~ Jenner & Block
Emerging Issues in Pharmaceutical and Biotech Litigation Arising from Clinical Trials
Loren Brown ~ DLA Piper US LLPAllen P. Waxman ~ Eisai Inc.
[D] : Price Inflation Damages Theory10-11
[E] : Unjust Enrichment10-13
§ 10:2.2 : Government Investigations10-14
[A] : Generally10-14
[B] : Under-Reporting or Selective Reporting of Clinical Trial Results10-14
[C] : The Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act10-16
§ 10:3 : Failure to Disclose Material Clinical Trial Results: Securities Claims10-18
§ 10:3.1 : Generally10-18
§ 10:3.2 : Government Regulation of Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Companies10-18
§ 10:3.3 : Securities Litigation Involving the Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Industry10-20
§ 10:4 : Injury Claims by Clinical Trial Subjects10-24
§ 10:4.1 : Generally10-24
§ 10:4.2 : Medical Malpractice Claims10-24
§ 10:4.3 : Lack of Informed Consent Claims: Failure to Disclose Financial Relationships and Other Conflicts of Interest10-25
§ 10:4.4 : Novel Liability Theories10-26
§ 10:4.5 : Suits Attempting to Force Manufacturers to Continue to Provide Study Medications10-26
§ 10:4.6 : Novel Defendants—Institutional Review Boards10-29
§ 10:4.7 : Increased International Scrutiny of Clinical Trials10-29
§ 10:5 : Conclusion10-31
Emerging Issues in Medical Device Litigation
David R Geiger ~ Foley Hoag LLPNabeel Ahmad ~ Foley Hoag LLP
§ 11:1.2 : Arguments for Exception to Preemption11-3
[A] : Claims for Off-Label Use or Promotion11-3
[B] : Claims for Failure to Make Changes in Warnings11-8
[C] : Manufacturing Defect Claims11-10
[D] : Express Warranty Claims11-14
§ 11:2 : Claims Arising from the Presence in the Operating Room of a Medical Device Manufacturer’s Sales Representative11-16
§ 11:2.2 : Invasion of Privacy11-17
§ 11:2.3 : Battery11-19
§ 11:2.4 : Negligently Advising or Failing to Advise the Physician11-21
§ 11:2.5 : Unauthorized Practice of Medicine11-25
§ 11:2.6 : Recommended Practices for Manufacturer’s Representatives11-27
§ 11:3 : Admissibility of Testimony by “FDA Experts” and Human Factors Experts11-28
§ 11:3.1 : “FDA Experts” and Human Factors Experts Generally11-28
§ 11:3.2 : Rule 702 Challenges to Experts11-28
[A] : Lack of Helpfulness to the Fact-Finder11-28
[B] : Improper Invasion of Judge’s Role11-33
[C] : Lack of Competence to Testify11-36
[D] : Lack of Reliability of Testimony11-37
§ 11:3.3 : Rule 704 Challenges to Experts—Opinions on an Ultimate Issue11-39
§ 11:3.4 : The FDA’s Amicus Brief in Strong v. American Cyanamid—Rules 702 and 704, and Deference to the FDA11-40
§ 11:3.5 : Admissibility of Testimony by Human Factors Experts11-42
Emerging Issues in Automotive Product Liability Litigation; And Chapter 12A: Emerging Issues in Food Law and Litigation
Kristin R. Eads ~ Faegre Baker DanielsHolly A Hempel ~ Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLPSara Turnipseed ~ Nelson Mullins LLPSarah L Brew ~ Halleland Lewis Nilan & JohnsonJoel Smith ~ Nelson MullinsAllison Crawford ~ Nelson Mullins
§ 12A:2.2 : FDA12A-4
§ 12A:2.3 : USDA12A-6
§ 12A:2.4 : FTC12A-7
§ 12A:3 : Foodborne Illness Litigation12A-8
§ 12A:3.1 : Generally12A-8
§ 12A:3.2 : Strict Liability12A-8
§ 12A:3.3 : Defect12A-9
[A] : Generally12A-9
[B] : Definition of Defective Food12A-10
[C] : Proof of Defect12A-12
§ 12A:3.4 : Causation12A-13
§ 12A:3.5 : Causation in Foodborne Illness Outbreaks12A-15
§ 12A:3.6 : Liability Across the Supply Chain12A-16
[A] : Generally12A-16
[B] : Sellers and Distributors12A-17
[C] : “Manufacturer” of Food Products12A-17
§ 12A:4 : Class Actions12A-18
§ 12A:4.1 : Foodborne Illness Outbreaks12A-18
§ 12A:4.2 : Consumer Fraud Litigation12A-19
[A] : Generally12A-19
[B] : Reliance12A-21
[C] : Causation12A-22
[D] : Injury12A-23
[E] : Failure to Sufficiently Plead12A-23
[F] : Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction12A-23
§ 12A:5 : Conclusion12A-27
Emerging Issues in Cosmetics and Other Beauty Product Litigation
Vickie Turner ~ Wilson Petty Kosmo & Turner LLPMeryl Maneker ~ Wilson Petty Kosmo & Turner
§ 13:2.2 : Fair Packaging and Labeling Act13-4
§ 13:3.2 : California Safe Cosmetics Act13-5
[E] : Nanomaterials13-10
§ 13:4.2 : Product Liability and Other Litigation Related to Cosmetic Ingredients13-12
[A] : Traditional Product Liability Claims13-12
[B] : “No Injury” Product Liability Claims13-13
[C] : Private Actions to Enforce State Health and Safety Requirements13-14
§ 13:5 : Organic and Other Content Claims13-15
§ 13:5.1 : Generally13-15
§ 13:6 : Products Claiming Attributes of Cosmetics and Drugs13-16
§ 13:6.1 : Definition of “Cosmeceuticals”13-16
§ 13:6.2 : Consequences of Marketing Cosmetics As Drugs13-17
§ 13:7 : Conclusion13-18
Emerging Issues for Products Made Overseas
Debra E Pole ~ Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLPSara J Gourley ~ Sidley Austin LLP
§ 14:1 : Overview14-2§ 14:2 : Jurisdictional Challenges14-3§ 14:2.1 : Generally14-3§ 14:2.2 : U.S. Jurisdictional Framework14-3§ 14:2.3 : Specific Jurisdiction Over Foreign Product Manufacturers: “Stream of Commerce” Theory and Its Emerging Application14-6§ 14:2.4 : “Reasonableness/Fairness” of Jurisdiction Over Foreign Product Manufacturers14-9§ 14:2.5 : “Alter Ego” Jurisdiction: An End Around the Jurisdictional Challenges?14-10§ 14:3 : Discovery of Documents and People Abroad14-14§ 14:3.1 : Generally14-14§ 14:3.2 : Emerging Issues in Discovery Methods14-15[A] : Developments in the Selection of the Discovery Regime14-15[B] : Party “Control” of Information Abroad14-18[C] : Developments in Discovery Under the Hague Convention14-20§ 14:3.3 : Barriers to Discovery14-21[A] : Barriers to Discovery in the EU14-21[B] : Barriers to Discovery in China14-24[B][1] : China’s Limited Participation in the Hague Convention14-24[B][2] : China State Secrecy Law14-25[B][3] : China Data Privacy Law14-26§ 14:4 : Enforcing U.S. Judgments Overseas14-27§ 14:5 : The Future14-28§ 14:6 : Conclusion14-30
Update on the Law of Damages in Product Liability Litigation; And Appendices 15A-15B
Evan Buxner ~ Evan D Buxner LLCDionne Koller ~ University of Baltimore - School of Law
Using Early Case Assessments to Develop Strategy; And Appendix 16A: Template for an Early Case Assessment
Mark E. (Rick)Richardson ~ GlaxoSmithKline
Linda S Woolf ~ Goodell DeVries Leech & DanRichard Barnes ~ Goodell DeVries Leech DannKamil Ismail ~ Goodell DeVries Leech Dann
§ 17:2.2 : Insuring Provisions17-6
[A] : CGL Policies17-6
[B] : Products/Operations/Completed Operations17-10
[C] : Known Losses17-11
[E] : Punitive Damages17-13
§ 17:3 : Amount of Coverage Available17-14
§ 17:3.1 : Policy Limits17-14
[A] : Aggregate, Per-Occurrence and “Batch” Limits17-14
[D] : Allocation17-18
[E] : Exhaustion17-19
§ 17:3.2 : Supplementary Payments17-20
§ 17:4 : Coverage Litigation17-21
§ 17:4.1 : Impact of Coverage Disputes on Liability Defense17-21
§ 17:4.3 : Insurer’s Liability for Unreasonable Failure to Settle Claims Within Policy Limits17-23
§ 17:4.4 : Insured’s Right to Independent Counsel17-24
§ 17:5 : Conclusion17-25
Advantages and Disadvantages of Multidistrict Litigation
Lauren Gershuny ~ Genova Burns VernoiaSheila Boston ~ Kaye ScholerWendy Fleishman ~ Lieff Cabraser
§ 18:1 : Overview18-2§ 18:2 : Advantages of Multidistrict Litigation18-2§ 18:2.1 : Efficient and Expeditious Pretrial Procedures: Avoidance of Duplication18-2§ 18:2.2 : Determinations by a Single Forum18-3§ 18:2.3 : A Global Point of View18-5§ 18:3 : Disadvantages of the MDL Process18-6§ 18:4 : Defendant’s Perspective18-6§ 18:4.1 : Benefits18-6[A] : Centralized Discovery18-7[B] : Lower Transactional Costs18-7[C] : Single Dispositive Motions18-8[D] : Uniform Pleadings, Interrogatories, and Discovery Approaches18-8[E] : Daubert Challenges18-8§ 18:4.2 : Disadvantages18-9§ 18:5 : Plaintiff’s Perspective18-10§ 18:5.1 : Benefits18-10§ 18:5.2 : Disadvantages18-11[A] : Inconvenient Forum18-11[B] : Trial Delay18-11[C] : Loss of Plaintiff’s Individual Interests18-11[D] : Challenges to Plaintiffs’ Counsel: the Common Benefit Assessment Order18-12§ 18:6 : Conclusion18-13
Strategies for Co-Defending Product Actions
Lee Davis Thames ~ Butler SnowLemuel Montgomery ~ Butler Snow
§ 19:1 : Overview19-2§ 19:2 : Early Considerations in Multi-Defendant Actions19-3§ 19:2.1 : Reconfiguring the Players19-3[A] : Generally19-3[B] : Compulsory Joinder19-4[C] : Permissive Joinder and Severance19-5[D] : Third-Party Practice19-5§ 19:2.2 : Coordinating Removal Among Co-Defendants19-6§ 19:3 : Choosing the Defense Strategy19-9§ 19:4 : Facilitating Cooperation Among Co-Defendants19-10§ 19:4.1 : The Joint Defense Privilege and Joint Defense Agreements19-10[A] : Generally19-10[B] : Ethical Considerations Surrounding Joint Defense Agreements19-11[C] : Drafting the Joint Defense Agreement19-14§ 19:4.2 : Informal Discovery Among Co-Defendants19-16§ 19:5 : Common Dangers of Joint Defense19-17§ 19:5.1 : Protecting Confidential and Proprietary Information with Self-Executing and Multi-Tiered Protective Orders19-17§ 19:5.2 : Ethical Considerations When Representing Multiple Defendants19-18§ 19:5.3 : Settlement Agreements Involving Less Than All Co-Defendants; the Dangers and Risks of Mary Carter Agreements19-20§ 19:6 : Cooperation Among Co-Defendants with Adverse Interests19-23§ 19:6.1 : Dealing with Indemnity Obligations19-23§ 19:6.2 : Sharing (or Not Sharing) Experts19-24§ 19:6.3 : Mediation Strategy and Settlement Allocation Among Co-Defendants19-25[A] : Generally19-25[B] : Inform the Decision Makers19-25[C] : Evaluate the Insurance Coverage19-26[D] : Consider a Joint Mediation Plan19-26§ 19:6.4 : Handling the Hostile Co-Defendant19-27§ 19:7 : Checklist for Co-Defending Product Actions19-27
Crisis Management Sarah L Brew ~ Halleland Lewis Nilan & JohnsonKathryn Hibbard ~ Greene Espel
§ 20:1 : Overview20-2§ 20:2 : Crisis Management Planning Process20-3§ 20:2.1 : Formation of a Crisis Management Team20-3§ 20:2.2 : Assessing Risks20-5§ 20:2.3 : Developing a Written Crisis Management Plan20-7[A] : Generally20-7[B] : Communications Tree20-8[C] : Responsibilities of the Crisis Management Team20-8[D] : Communications Plan20-10[D][1] : Generally20-10[D][2] : Holding Statements20-10[D][3] : Key Stakeholders20-11[D][4] : Process for Drafting and Approving Internal and External Statements20-12[D][5] : Communicating the Business’s Internal and External Statements20-14[D][6] : Communications to Litigation Players20-16[E] : Fact Gathering20-16[F] : Sample Documents20-17§ 20:2.4 : Practicing the Written Crisis Management Plan20-18§ 20:3 : The Attorney’s Role in a Crisis20-18§ 20:3.1 : Attorney-Client Privilege20-19§ 20:3.2 : Work Product Doctrine20-20§ 20:4 : Conclusion20-21
Power of the Media in Bet-the-Company Litigation
Joanne M Gray ~ Goodwin Procter LLP
§ 21:1 : Overview21-2§ 21:2 : The Media During a Crisis21-3§ 21:2.1 : Role of the Media21-3§ 21:2.2 : Using the Media21-3§ 21:2.3 : Case Studies21-4[A] : Bridgestone/Firestone: What Not to Do When Faced With a Crisis21-4[A][1] : Background21-4[A][2] : Avoiding Responsibility21-4[A][3] : Withholding Information21-5[A][4] : Failure to Develop a Media Response Plan21-6[B] : Odwalla: Effective Use of the Media During a Crisis21-7[C] : Effective Crises Management21-8[C][1] : Generally21-8[C][2] : Designating a Media Response Team21-8[C][3] : Taking Responsibility21-9§ 21:3 : Developing an Effective Media Response Plan Before a Crisis Hits21-10§ 21:3.1 : Generally21-10§ 21:3.2 : Internal Organization—Forming a Media Response Team21-11§ 21:3.3 : Developing Media Relationships21-12§ 21:3.4 : Establishing Online Support Systems21-12§ 21:3.5 : Conveying Company Commitment to Customers21-13§ 21:4 : Responding to a Crisis21-13§ 21:4.1 : Managing Media Under Fire21-13§ 21:4.2 : Steps to Take When Responding to a Crisis21-14[A] : Developing a Strategic Media Message21-14[B] : Timely Delivery of Media Message21-14[C] : Opening Line of Communication21-15[D] : Progressive Planning21-15§ 21:5 : Litigation and the Media21-15§ 21:5.1 : Generally21-15§ 21:5.2 : Handling the Media Without Jeopardizing Lawsuits21-17[A] : Consistent Company Media Message and Strategy21-17[B] : Retaining Experienced Legal Counsel21-17[C] : Consistent Company Media Message and Strategy21-18§ 21:6 : Conclusion21-18
Richard Goetz ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLPCarlos M. Lazatin ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLPEsteban Rodriguez ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
[B] : Heightened Judicial Scrutiny22-5
§ 22:2.3 : Transparency in the Settlement Process22-6
§ 22:2.4 : Multiple Parties with Goals of Derailment22-8
[B] : Differences in Goals and Acceptability of Terms22-8
[C] : Class Member Objections22-9
§ 22:3 : Basic Steps for Class Action Settlements22-9
§ 22:3.1 : Generally22-9
§ 22:3.2 : Negotiation Process22-10
[A] : Generally22-10
[B] : Timing of the Class Settlement22-10
[B][1] : Generally22-10
[B][2] : Pre-Suit Settlements22-11
[B][2][a] : Advantages22-11
[B][2][b] : Disadvantages22-11
[B][3] : Early Rulings22-12
[B][4] : Class Certification Ruling22-12
[B][5] : Deciding Whether to Proceed to Trial22-12
[B][5][a] : Generally22-12
[B][5][b] : Risks for Plaintiffs22-13
[B][5][c] : Risks for Defendants22-13
[C] : Good-Faith, Arm’s-Length Negotiations22-14
[D] : Defining the Settlement Class22-14
[D][1] : For Plaintiffs22-15
[D][2] : For Defendants22-15
[D][3] : Sub-Classes22-16
[D][4] : Class Exclusions22-16
[E] : Defining the Scope of the Release22-17
[E][1] : What Claims Will Be Released?22-17
[E][2] : What Is the Time Period Covered by the Release?22-19
[E][3] : Who Will Be the “Released Parties”?22-19
[F] : Consideration to Class Members22-20
[F][1] : Generally22-20
[F][2] : Settlement Fund Allocation22-21
[F][2][a] : Lump Sum Settlements22-21
[F][2][b] : Coupon Settlements22-22
[F][3] : Settlements for Sub-Classes22-24
[F][4] : Undistributed or Unclaimed Distribution22-24
[F][5] : Equitable Relief or Changes in Business Practices22-25
[F][6] : Fairness of the Settlement Consideration22-26
[G] : Incentive Award to Class Representative22-27
[H] : Confirmatory Discovery22-27
[I] : Notice and Administration Procedures22-28
[I][1] : Generally22-28
[I][2] : First-Class Mail22-29
[I][3] : Bulk Mail22-29
[I][4] : E-mail22-30
[I][5] : Other Methods of Notice22-30
[I][6] : Settlement Administration22-31
[J] : Negotiating Class Counsel’s Fees22-32
[K] : Drafting the Settlement Agreement22-33
§ 22:3.3 : Preliminary Approval Process22-34
[A] : Generally22-34
[B] : Motion for Preliminary Approval22-34
[B][1] : Generally22-34
[B][2] : Topics Covered by the Motion22-35
[B][2][a] : Summary of the History of the Litigation22-35
[B][2][b] : Background of Settlement Negotiation22-35
[B][2][c] : Summary Description of Settlement Terms22-36
[B][2][d] : Provide Sound Bases for Modified Class Definition22-36
[B][2][e] : Description of Key Factual and Legal Issues22-37
[B][2][f] : Demonstrate Qualification for Class Certification22-37
[C] : Preliminary Approval Hearing22-39
[D] : Dealing with Potential Objectors22-40
[D][1] : Generally22-40
[D][2] : Types of Objectors22-41
[D][3] : Defeating Objectors22-41
[D][4] : Settling with Objectors22-43
[E] : Requests to Enjoin Competing Class Actions22-43
§ 22:3.4 : Fairness Hearing Process22-44
[A] : Generally22-44
[B] : Setting the Timetable for the Fairness Hearing22-45
[C] : CAFA’s Notice Requirements for Government Officials22-46
[D] : Submissions for the Fairness Hearing22-48
[E] : Use of Experts and Other Witnesses for the Fairness Hearing22-49
[F] : Conduct of the Fairness Hearing22-50
§ 22:4 : Risks of a Failed Class Settlement22-51
§ 22:4.1 : Changes to the Players and Dynamics22-51
§ 22:4.2 : Defendant’s Diminished Leverage22-52
§ 22:4.3 : Bar to Challenging Class Certification22-52
§ 22:4.4 : Financial Impact on the Defendant22-53
Mass Tort Settlement Strategies
Richard Goetz ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLPCatalina Vergara ~ O'Melveny & Myers LLP
§ 23:2.4 : Hybrid Approach23-11
§ 23:2.5 : Aggregate Settlement Agreements with Plaintiffs’ Attorneys23-13
[A] : Generally23-13
[B] : Propulsid® Litigation23-14
[B][1] : Background23-14
§ 23:3 : Private Settlement Agreement: Vioxx Settlement23-17
§ 23:3.1 : Background23-17
Charles B Updike ~ Schoeman Updike & KaufmanBeth Kaufman ~ Schoeman Updike & Kaufman
§ 24:1 : Overview24-1§ 24:2 : Agreement to Arbitrate24-2§ 24:2.1 : Generally24-2§ 24:2.2 : Benefits24-3§ 24:2.3 : Pitfalls24-3[A] : Broad Language24-3[B] : Multiple Outcomes24-4[C] : Finality24-5§ 24:3 : Post-Claim Agreements to Arbitrate24-5§ 24:4 : Individual Claims by End-Users24-6§ 24:4.1 : Generally24-6§ 24:4.2 : Arbitration Considerations24-6§ 24:4.3 : Voluntary Arbitration Rules24-7§ 24:5 : Arbitration in “Mass Tort” Product Liability Claims24-8§ 24:5.1 : Background24-8§ 24:5.2 : Benefits24-9§ 24:6 : Conclusion24-10
Privilege in a Global Product Economy
Michael A Tanenbaum ~ Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLPMarina Hoppas ~ Sedgwick Detert Moran & Arnold LLP
Margaret A. Daley ~ Duff & PhelpsErik Laykin ~ Duff & Phelps LLC
§ 26:1 : Overview26-2§ 26:2 : Conducting Background Investigations26-3§ 26:2.1 : Generally26-3§ 26:2.2 : The Internet26-3[A] : Generally26-3[B] : Search Engines26-4[C] : Bulletin Board Postings26-6[D] : Social Networking Sites26-7[E] : Blogs26-8§ 26:3 : Subscription Databases26-9§ 26:3.1 : Generally26-9§ 26:3.2 : LexisNexis26-10§ 26:3.3 : ChoicePoint and Westlaw26-10§ 26:3.4 : World-Check26-10§ 26:4 : Researching People26-11§ 26:5 : Researching Expert Witnesses26-13§ 26:6 : Researching Companies26-15§ 26:7 : Researching Product Liability26-17§ 26:8 : Some Caveats26-17§ 26:8.1 : Authentication26-17§ 26:8.2 : Hearsay26-18§ 26:8.3 : Language Limitations26-19§ 26:9 : Recovering Electronic Data26-19§ 26:9.1 : Generally26-19§ 26:9.2 : Deleted Data26-20§ 26:9.3 : Computer Forensic Process26-21§ 26:10 : Conclusion26-24
E-Discovery--Emerging Legal Issues and Guiding Law; And Appendices 27A-27B
Leaf D. Mcgregor ~ Fulbright & Jaworski LLPStephanie Smith ~ Fulbright & Jaworski LLPLaurie Weiss ~ Fulbright & Jaworski LLPMarti Cherry ~ Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
§ 27:1 : Overview27-2§ 27:2 : E-Discovery Life Cycle—Electronic Discovery Reference Model27-3§ 27:3 : Federal and State Rules27-3§ 27:3.1 : Brief Summary of the Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure27-4[A] : Rules 26(f) and 16(b): Early Attention to ESI Discovery Issues27-4[B] : Rule 34(b): Discuss Form of Production Before Production27-4[C] : Rule 26(a)(1)(A): Mandatory Disclosures Must Include ESI27-5[D] : Rule 26(b)(2)(B): “Two-Tiered” Discovery of Inaccessible ESI27-6[E] : Rule 26(b)(5): Inadvertent Production of Privileged Documents27-7[F] : Rule 33(d): Records in Lieu of Answering Interrogatories27-8[G] : Rule 37(e) (formerly 37(f)): The Not-So-Safe “Safe Harbor”27-8[H] : Rule 45: Third-Party Subpoena Practice27-10[I] : Advisory Committee Notes Contain Additional Guidance27-10§ 27:3.2 : State Trial Court Rules27-11[A] : E-Discovery Guidelines for State Trial Courts27-11[B] : State Rulemaking Efforts27-11§ 27:4 : Defense of Process: Managing the Electronic Discovery Life Cycle27-12§ 27:4.1 : Identification and Preservation of ESI27-12[A] : Duty to Search For and Preserve Relevant ESI27-12[B] : Duty to Preserve—Triggering Mechanisms27-14[C] : Legal Holds—Issuing Preservation Notice27-16[C][1] : Role of Senior Management and Counsel27-16[C][2] : Preservation Notice or Request to Third Parties27-17[C][3] : Assertion of Privilege27-18[D] : Penalties and Sanctions27-19§ 27:4.2 : Review of ESI27-22[A] : Privilege, Work Product, and Confidentiality27-22[A][1] : Jurisdictions Vary in Approach to Privilege Waiver27-23[A][2] : Clawback Procedure and Agreements27-24[A][3] : Federal Rule of Evidence 50227-25[A][4] : Outsourcing to U.S. or Offshore Contract Attorneys27-27[B] : Technology-Assisted Search, Retrieval, and Review27-28§ 27:5 : Presentation of ESI: Admissibility Issues27-31§ 27:5.1 : Generally27-31§ 27:5.2 : Five-Step Analysis27-31[A] : Generally27-31[B] : Relevance27-32[C] : Authenticity27-33[D] : Hearsay27-35[E] : Original Writing Rule27-37[F] : Probative Value versus Unfair Prejudice27-38§ 27:6 : Third-Party Discovery—Rule 4527-38§ 27:6.1 : Generally27-38§ 27:6.2 : Scope of Discovery from a Nonparty27-39§ 27:6.3 : Cost Burden on a Nonparty—Basis for Cost-Shifting27-42§ 27:7 : Shifting Costs to the Adversary27-43§ 27:7.1 : Generally27-43§ 27:7.2 : Rowe Entertainment Factors27-44§ 27:7.3 : Zubulake Test27-46§ 27:7.4 : Sedona Guidelines on Cost-Shifting27-47§ 27:8 : Conclusion27-48Appendix 27A : State Rulemaking EffortsApp. 27A–1Appendix 27B : Jurisdictional Approaches to Privilege Waiver Through Inadvertent DisclosureApp. 27B–1
E-Discovery--Practical Considerations
Marie S Woodbury ~ Shook Hardy & Bacon LLPDenise Talbert ~ Shook Hardy Bacon LLPJohn Vaglio ~ Shook Hardy Bacon LLP
Expert Evidence--Law, Strategies and Best Practices; And Appendix 29A: State Standards for Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Joshua Chow ~ Scharf Banks Marmor LLC
[C] : Differences Between Daubert and Frye29-16
§ 29:3 : Exemplar States29-18
§ 29:3.1 : Arizona29-18
§ 29:3.2 : California29-19
§ 29:3.3 : Florida29-21
§ 29:3.4 : Illinois29-22
§ 29:3.5 : Indiana29-24
§ 29:3.6 : Michigan29-26
§ 29:3.7 : Minnesota29-27
§ 29:3.8 : New Jersey29-28
§ 29:3.9 : New York29-29
§ 29:3.10 : Ohio29-30
§ 29:3.11 : Pennsylvania29-31
§ 29:3.12 : Texas29-32
§ 29:3.13 : Virginia29-33
§ 29:3.14 : Wisconsin29-35
§ 29:4 : Daubert/Frye in Practice29-36
§ 29:4.1 : Establishing Causation Through Expert Testimony29-36
§ 29:4.2 : Preparing for Daubert/Frye Challenges29-38
§ 29:5 : 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2629-41
§ 29:6 : Conclusion29-42
Appendix 29A : State Standards for Admissibility of Expert EvidenceApp. 29A–1
Court Appointed Experts; And Chapters 30A-30C
Paxton Williams ~ Scharf Banks Marmor LLCZach A. Mayo ~ Scharf Banks Marmor LLCNathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A Schachtman, Esq., PCDeirdre A. Fox ~ Scharf Banks Marmor LLCJonathan M Hoffman ~ Martin BischoffGeorge D. Sax ~ Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Scharf
§ 30:2 : Court-Appointed Experts Under Rule 70630-3
§ 30:2.1 : Generally30-3
§ 30:2.2 : Interpretation of Rule 706’s Provisions30-4
[A] : Trial Court’s Discretion Whether to Appoint Experts30-4
[B] : Procedure for Invoking Rule 70630-6
§ 30:2.3 : Strategy30-6
[A] : Whether the Court Should Appoint Its Own Experts30-6
[A][1] : Benefits of Court-Appointed Experts30-7
[A][2] : Risks of Using Court-Appointed Experts30-8
[B] : Selecting a Court-Appointed Expert Witness30-9
[C] : Scope of Testimony30-11
§ 30:2.4 : Instructions to Appointed Witnesses30-11
[A] : Text of Rule 70630-11
[B] : Strategy30-11
[B][2] : Research Methods of Court-Appointed Experts30-12
[B][3] : Communications with Others30-12
[B][5] : Ex Parte Communications with the Court30-13
[B][7] : Reports30-14
[B][8] : Document Retention30-15
[B][11] : Disclosure of Experts’ Status30-16
[C] : Payment of Experts’ Costs30-16
§ 30:3 : Technical Advisors30-17
§ 30:3.1 : Generally30-17
§ 30:3.2 : Court’s Inherent Authority30-17
§ 30:3.3 : Procedural Protections30-19
§ 30:3.4 : Costs30-21
§ 30A:5.2 : The Transpositional Fallacy30A-5
§ 30A:5.3 : Confusion Between Significance Probability and The Burden of Proof30A-6
§ 30A:5.4 : Hypothesis Testing30A-7
§ 30A:5.5 : Confidence Intervals30A-8
§ 30A:5.6 : Inappropriate Use of Statistical Significance—Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano30A-9
[A] : Sequelae of Matrixx Initiatives30A-12
[B] : Is Statistical Significance Necessary?30A-13
§ 30A:6 : Statistical Power30A-14
§ 30A:6.1 : Definition of Statistical Power30A-14
§ 30A:6.2 : Cases Involving Statistical Power30A-15
§ 30A:7 : Meta-Analysis30A-17
§ 30A:7.1 : Definition and History of Meta-Analysis30A-17
§ 30A:7.2 : Consensus Statements30A-18
§ 30A:7.3 : Use of Meta-Analysis in Litigation30A-18
§ 30A:7.4 : Competing Models for Meta-Analysis30A-20
§ 30A:7.5 : Recent Cases Involving Meta-Analyses30A-21
§ 30A:8 : Conclusion30A-23
Pharmaceutical Companies--Parallel Proceedings and Product Litigation
Robert N Weiner ~ Arnold & PorterJeffrey L Handwerker ~ Arnold & Porter
Andrew Manko ~ Carlton FieldsAlina Alonso ~ Carlton Fields PAWendy Lumish ~ Carlton Fields
§ 32:1 : Overview32-2§ 32:2 : Pre-Trial32-2§ 32:2.1 : Drafting Pleadings and Dispositive Motions32-2§ 32:2.2 : Motions in Limine32-3§ 32:2.3 : Experts32-4§ 32:2.4 : Pre-Trial Stipulation32-5§ 32:3 : Trial32-6§ 32:3.1 : The Record32-6[A] : Generally32-6[B] : Depositions32-6[C] : Exhibits32-7[D] : Non-Verbal Conduct32-8[E] : Filing Documents During Trial32-8§ 32:3.2 : Voir Dire32-8§ 32:3.3 : Evidentiary Objections32-10§ 32:3.4 : Expert Testimony Revisited32-11§ 32:3.5 : Proffers of Evidence32-12§ 32:3.6 : Motion for Directed Verdict32-12§ 32:3.7 : Jury Instructions32-13§ 32:3.8 : Verdict Form32-16§ 32:3.9 : Closing Argument32-18§ 32:3.10 : Juror Misconduct32-18§ 32:4 : Post-Trial32-19
Post-Sale Responsibilities in the United States and Foreign Countries
Kenneth Ross ~ Bowman & BrookeGeorge Soule ~ Bowman & Brooke
§ 33:1 : Overview33-2§ 33:2 : U.S. Common Law33-3§ 33:2.1 : Generally33-3§ 33:2.2 : Third Restatement Law on Post-Sale Duty to Warn33-3§ 33:2.3 : State Courts33-5§ 33:3 : U.S. Regulatory Law33-6§ 33:3.1 : Generally33-6§ 33:3.2 : Addressing Global Safety Issues33-7§ 33:3.3 : Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 200833-7§ 33:4 : Foreign Regulatory Activity33-8§ 33:4.1 : Generally33-8§ 33:4.2 : European Response33-8§ 33:4.3 : Foreign Standards and Regulations33-9§ 33:5 : Meeting a Manufacturer’s Post-Sale Duties33-10§ 33:5.1 : Information-Gathering Network33-10§ 33:5.2 : Risk Assessment33-11§ 33:5.3 : Determining the Necessity of Post-Sale Action33-12§ 33:6 : Defending a Product After a Recall33-12§ 33:6.1 : Generally33-12§ 33:6.2 : Manufacturer Strategies33-13[A] : Act Decisively and Expeditiously in Conducting the Recall33-13[B] : Draft the Recall Message with Care33-13[C] : Pick “Losers” and “Winners”33-13[D] : Weigh Pros and Cons of Excluding Recall Evidence33-14[E] : Police Claims Against Manufacturer33-15[F] : Put the Risk of Injury into Perspective33-15[G] : Tell the Due Care Story33-16[H] : Prove Accident Not Due to Recall Condition33-16[I] : Prove Another Factor Caused the Accident33-16[J] : Try the Comparative Fault Case Against Others33-16§ 33:7 : Conclusion33-17
Recent Developments in Product Recalls
Dean N. Panos ~ Jenner & Block LLPRichard P Steinken ~ Jenner & Block LLCStephanie Jean-Jacques ~ § 34:1 : Overview34-2
Elizabeth Abbene Coleman ~ Jenner & BlockRayna M Matczak ~ § 35:1 : Traditional Approach to Successor Liability35-1
§ 35:1.1 : Generally35-1
§ 35:1.2 : Traditional Exception #1: Agreement of the Parties35-3
§ 35:1.3 : Traditional Exception #2: Fraudulent Conveyance35-5
§ 35:1.4 : Traditional Exception #3: Consolidation or Merger35-7
§ 35:1.5 : Traditional Exception #4: Mere Continuation35-8
§ 35:2 : Non-Traditional Approaches to Successor Liability35-10
§ 35:2.1 : Generally35-10
§ 35:2.2 : Non-Traditional Exception #1: Product Line35-11
§ 35:2.3 : Non-Traditional Exception #2: Continuity of Enterprise35-16
§ 35:3 : Buyer Beware35-20
Role of Corporate Executives
Samuel Goldblatt ~ Nixon Peabody LLPBenjamin Dwyer ~ Nixon Peabody, LLP
§ 36:1 : Overview36-1§ 36:2 : Limitations on Depositions of High-Level Executives36-2§ 36:2.1 : Generally36-2§ 36:2.2 : Law of “Apex” Depositions36-4§ 36:2.3 : Unique or Superior Knowledge36-6§ 36:2.4 : Less Burdensome Means36-10§ 36:3 : Plaintiff’s Strategic Considerations36-13§ 36:4 : Defense’s Strategic Considerations36-15§ 36:5 : Negotiating the Scope of Depositions36-16§ 36:6 : Preparation of a High-Level Executive for Deposition and Trial36-17§ 36:7 : Conclusion36-18
Contacting Corporate Employees
Sharon L Caffrey ~ Duane Morris LLPKenneth Argentieri ~ Duane Morris LLP
Spoliation of Product Evidence
Paul Benson ~ Michael Best & Friedrich LLPAdam Witkov ~ § 38:1 : Overview38-2
§ 38:3.3 : State Court Trends38-4
§ 38:4 : Negligent Spoliation38-6
§ 38:4.1 : Generally38-6
§ 38:4.2 : Negligent Spoliation by a Plaintiff38-6
§ 38:4.3 : Negligent Spoliation by a Defendant38-7
§ 38:4.4 : Negligent Spoliation by a Third Party38-9
[A] : Generally38-9
[B] : Duty to Preserve Evidence38-10
§ 38:5 : Intentional Spoliation38-11
§ 38:5.1 : Generally38-11
§ 38:5.2 : Intentional Spoliation by a Plaintiff38-12
§ 38:5.3 : Intentional Spoliation by a Defendant38-13
§ 38:5.4 : Intentional Spoliation by a Third Party38-14
[A] : Generally38-14
[B] : Third-Party Intentional Spoliation Not Protected38-16
§ 38:6 : Defenses and Sanctions38-17
§ 38:6.1 : Defenses38-17
[A] : Good Faith38-17
[B] : Opportunity to Examine38-18
[C] : Immaterial Evidence38-18
[D] : Statutes of Limitations38-19
§ 38:6.2 : Sanctions38-19
[A] : Generally38-19
[B] : Dismissal38-20
[C] : Monetary Sanctions38-21
[D] : Spoliation Inference/Rebuttable Presumption38-22
[E] : Criminal Liability for Obstruction of Justice38-24
§ 38:7 : Conclusion38-24
Presenting Complex Scientific Evidence
Morton D. Dubin II ~ Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
§ 39:1 : Overview39-2§ 39:2 : Selecting a Message39-2§ 39:2.1 : Generally39-2§ 39:2.2 : Understand the Scientific Evidence39-3§ 39:2.3 : Simplify the Trial Message39-3§ 39:2.4 : Expert Credibility Themes39-4§ 39:3 : Selecting a Messenger—Importance of the Right Expert39-6§ 39:4 : Considerations During Phases of the Trial Process39-7§ 39:4.1 : Jury Selection39-7§ 39:4.2 : Opening39-7§ 39:4.3 : Direct Examination39-8[A] : State Opinions at the Outset39-8[B] : Tactical Presentation of Qualifications39-9[C] : Use of Visual Aids39-10[D] : Get Experts on Their Feet39-10[E] : Develop Themes39-10[F] : Draw Implied Conclusions39-11[G] : Understand Local Rules on Learned Treatises39-11[H] : “Gateway” Requirements39-13§ 39:4.4 : Cross-Examination39-14[A] : Understand Local Rules on Learned Treatises39-14[B] : Know Your Limitations and the Skill of the Expert39-15[C] : Focus on the Understandable39-15[D] : Best Available Tools for Organization and Presentation39-16[E] : Strategic Use of Bias Information39-16§ 39:4.5 : Closing39-17
High-Tech Litigation and the Uses of Technology
Erica Massaro-Hales ~ FTI ConsultingJamey Johnson ~ FTI Consulting
§ 40:1 : Overview40-2§ 40:2 : Advance Considerations40-3§ 40:2.1 : Document Management40-3§ 40:2.2 : Deposition Management40-3§ 40:2.3 : Choosing a Trial Consulting Company40-4[A] : High-Tech or Low-Tech?40-4[B] : In-House Support or a Trial Consulting Company?40-5§ 40:3 : Trial Preparation40-6§ 40:3.1 : Trial Logistics: The War Room40-6§ 40:3.2 : Demonstratives40-8§ 40:3.3 : Video Designations40-10§ 40:3.4 : Loading Trial Exhibits40-11§ 40:3.5 : War Room Equipment40-11[A] : Generally40-11[B] : Computers and Peripherals40-12[C] : Networks40-13[D] : File Servers40-13[E] : Backups40-14§ 40:3.6 : On-Site Staffing40-14[A] : Generally40-14[B] : Shorter Duration Trials40-15[C] : Longer Duration Trials40-15[D] : Large-Scale Trials40-16§ 40:4 : Trial40-16§ 40:4.1 : Courtroom Equipment40-16§ 40:4.2 : Using Demonstratives40-18§ 40:4.3 : Displaying Documents and Demonstratives40-19§ 40:4.4 : Playing Video Depositions40-21§ 40:5 : Post-Trial40-22[A] : Beakdown of Equipment40-23[B] : Data Archiving40-23§ 40:6 : Conclusion40-23
When the Plaintiff Declares Bankruptcy; And Appendix 41A: Summary Judgment/Dismissal Cases Based Upon Judicial Estoppel and/or Lack of Standing
Anita Hotchkiss ~ Goldberg Segalla LLP
§ 41:1 : Overview41-2§ 41:2 : Types of Bankruptcies41-3§ 41:2.1 : Chapter 741-3§ 41:2.2 : Chapter 1341-3§ 41:3 : Duty to Disclose Pending and Contingent Claims41-4§ 41:3.1 : Generally41-4§ 41:3.2 : Definition of “Pending Claims”41-5§ 41:4 : Standing41-5§ 41:4.1 : Generally41-5§ 41:4.2 : Standing and Bankruptcy41-5§ 41:5 : Judicial Estoppel41-7§ 41:5.1 : Generally41-7§ 41:5.2 : Judicial Estoppel and Bankruptcy41-8§ 41:5.3 : Elements Needed to Prove Entitlement to Summary Judgment41-10[A] : Generally41-10[B] : Knowledge41-11[C] : Bad Faith41-12[D] : Detrimental Reliance41-13[E] : Public Policy41-13§ 41:5.4 : Choice of Law41-14[A] : Generally41-14[B] : Exemptions Specific to Particular Jurisdictions41-14[C] : Significance of the Amount of Debt Discharged41-15§ 41:6 : Securing Dismissal or Summary Judgment41-15§ 41:7 : Plaintiff’s Responses to an Estoppel Motion41-17§ 41:7.1 : Generally41-17§ 41:7.2 : Amending the Bankruptcy Petition41-18§ 41:7.3 : Allowing the Bankruptcy Trustee to Prosecute the Case41-19§ 41:7.4 : Suing the Bankruptcy Attorney for Malpractice41-19§ 41:8 : Conclusion41-20Appendix 41A : Summary Judgment/Dismissal Cases Based Upon Judicial Estoppel and/or Lack of StandingApp. 41A–1
Emerging Jury Issues; And Appendices 42A-42B
Chilton Davis Varner ~ King & Spalding LLPC.K. "Peter" Rowland ~ § 42:1 : Overview42-2
§ 42:7 : Heightened Expectations About Warnings42-7
§ 42:8 : Safety-Consciousness of Companies42-8
§ 42:10 : Defendant’s Local Reputation42-9
§ 42:11 : Out-of-State Lawyers42-9
§ 42:12 : Outside Sources During Trial42-10
§ 42:13 : Good Graphics42-12
§ 42:14 : Jurors Online42-12
§ 42:15 : Jury Questionnaires—Powerful Tools42-13
§ 42:16 : Implicit Bias42-13
§ 42:17 : Conclusion42-15
Appendix 42A : Sample Brief in Support of Motion for Supplemental Written Juror QuestionnaireApp. 42A–1
Appendix 42B : Jury Instructions Cautioning Against Use of the Internet and Social NetworkingApp. 42B–1
Determining Juror Perceptions that Affect Verdicts
Cynthia R Cohen ~ Verdict Success
§ 43:1 : Overview43-2§ 43:2 : Different Venues, Different Verdicts43-2§ 43:2.1 : Generally43-2§ 43:2.2 : Do Headlines Influence Jurors’ Verdicts?43-2§ 43:2.3 : Epicenter of American Tragedies43-4§ 43:2.4 : Hometown: Advantage or Disadvantage43-4§ 43:2.5 : Who Awards Damages?43-4§ 43:2.6 : Jury Selection43-5§ 43:3 : Calming Fears in Chemical Products Liability Trials43-6§ 43:3.1 : Chemical Case Scenario43-6§ 43:3.2 : Awarding Punitive Damages Against Chemical Companies43-7§ 43:3.3 : Attitudes about Corporations43-8§ 43:3.4 : Safety or Profits Theme43-9§ 43:3.5 : Recognition of Chemical Corporations43-9§ 43:3.6 : Demographic Findings43-9§ 43:3.7 : Experience Matters43-10[A] : Familiarity Does Not Breed Contempt43-10[B] : Safety Experience Matters43-10[C] : Prior Court Experience Matters43-10[D] : Shopping Habits Matter43-10§ 43:3.8 : Media Coverage Matters43-10§ 43:4 : Juror Perceptions of the FDA that Affect Verdicts in Pharmaceutical Lawsuits43-11§ 43:4.1 : Generally43-11§ 43:4.2 : Trust in Government Agencies43-11§ 43:4.3 : Recognition of Pharmaceutical Companies43-14§ 43:4.4 : Knowledge of Lawsuits Against Pharmaceutical Companies43-16§ 43:4.5 : Comparing Perceptions of Vioxx to Perceptions of the FDA43-17§ 43:4.6 : Jury Selection Determiners from the Vioxx Scenario43-19§ 43:4.7 : Why Jury Research Findings Matter43-20§ 43:5 : Can It Happen in Missouri?43-22
Index to Product Liability Litigation: Current Law, Strategies and Best Practices Please click here to view the latest update information for this title: Last Update Information