Source: http://0350474.netsolhost.com/newsletter/sep2012/
Timestamp: 2013-12-06 14:25:10
Document Index: 135275431

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2025', '§2025', '§ 2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025', '§2025']

CMCP Newsletter - September 2012
Rosa v. Taser International: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds The State Of The Art Defense--
Finds Manufacturer Not Liable For Failure To Warn
The New 7-Hour Deposition Rule in California – An Open Invitation to Litigants to (Mis)Characterize their Claims and Defenses?
Attorney Spotlight: Anna Segobia Masters, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLP
Recent Event Recap: Hispanic Heritage Celebration Dinner
Rosa v. Taser International: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds The State Of The Art Defense --
by Dwayne Anderson, Senior Associate, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
The New 7-Hour Deposition Rule in California --
An Open Invitation to Litigants to (Mis)Characterize their Claims and Defenses?
by Constance J. Yu, Partner, Sideman & Bancroft LLP
Beginning January 1, 2013, depositions in California state court proceedings (with specifically enumerated exceptions) will be limited to 7 hours. On September 17, 2012, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 1875, which effectively amends Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) to be analogous with the 7-hour limit in Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). AB 1875 was backed by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), which claimed that the new law would reduce litigation costs for both sides. The organization also claimed that the legislation was prompted by CAOC’s members reporting an increase of lengthy depositions, in some cases characterizing the duration of the depositions as being abusive. The new rule will be codified in new CCP section 2025.290.
Anna Segobia Masters has practiced law for over 25 years and is a partner at Winston & Strawn in their Los Angeles office. Her area of practice is employment law, and she represents employers in class-action lawsuits and other employment litigation, as well as provides advice and counseling on all facets of employment law compliance. She is co-chair of the California Minority Counsel Program board of directors, and is active in civil rights causes. She provides pro bono representation to individuals with disabilities in the areas of education and public access and accommodation, and she also represents children in adoption proceedings, primarily for Spanish-speaking families. .
Business Development Series: The Perfect Time to Engage in Business Development: Now
CMCP Newsletter Articles and Other Member Contributed Substantive Legal Content Now Posted on JD Supra! Check Us Out on JDSupra
To submit an article to the CMCP eNewsletter or Blawg, Click Here. | September 2012 |
Rosa v. Taser International: Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals Upholds The State Of The Art Defense
-- Finds Manufacturer Not Liable For Failure To Warn .
by Dwayne Andreson, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
TASER International, Inc. (“TASER”) manufactured the Advanced Taser M26 (the “Stun Gun”), which is a weapon often used by police officers to subdue suspects. The Stun Gun operates in two modes: “probe mode,” in which two metal darts are shot into the target’s body; and “drive-stun mode,” in which two electrodes on the front of the Stun Gun are placed in direct contact with the target’s skin. Under both modes of operation, a series of electric pulses are sent through the target each time the trigger is depressed. On August 29, 2004, shortly after 11:00 p.m., the Del Rey Oaks police department was called regarding a “disturbed” man in the street yelling. Approximately seven officers responded and found Michael Rosa behaving as if he was “either really high or crazy.” After a brief pursuit, Rosa threatened the officers with a two-by-four so Officer Doza shot Rosa with the Stun Gun in “probe mode.” However, Rosa fell and broke the leads, which ended the shock. Officer Doza loaded a new cartridge, shot Rosa a second time with the Stun Gun in “probe mode” and depressed the trigger six or seven times in an attempt to control Rosa. Rosa continued to struggle, therefore, Officer Borges deployed his Stun Gun in “probe mode” and depressed the trigger three times. Rosa finally fell to the ground, but continued to resist. Therefore, Officer Doza again used his Stun Gun, this time in “drive-stun mode.” After the officers were able to get Rosa in handcuffs, Rosa stopped breathing. Resuscitation attempts at the scene and during transport to the hospital were unsuccessful. Rosa’s heart went into cardiac arrest and he was pronounced dead at 12:30 a.m.
On TASER’s motion for summary judgment, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs did not “establish a triable issue of fact that the risk of metabolic acidosis was known or knowable when the [Stun Gun] at issue was distributed or when Rosa died.” It concluded that the scientific research cited by the plaintiffs did not address TASER’s products, was not publicly available and/or amounted to nothing more than unproven hypotheses. As such, TASER was not liable under strict liability or negligence. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by construing TASER’s duty to warn too narrowly. The plaintiffs claimed that “any risk that was discoverable through modern technology, no matter how unsubstantiated, was knowable by TASER.” Therefore, TASER should have warned about the risk of metabolic acidosis based on four peer reviewed articles. The first article was a 1996 study of the impact of acidosis on the risk of ventricular fibrillation, a form of cardiac arrest. However, the court determined that the study only demonstrates that the risk of ventricular fibrillation increases as blood pH decreases, but does not link its findings or acidosis to the use of Stun Guns. The second article was a 1999 case study on the link between metabolic acidosis and deaths that occur while in police custody, commonly referred to as “sudden in-custody death syndrome.” The court concluded that the 1999 study is incomplete because lactate levels – an indicator of acidosis – were obtained in only one of the five cases studied. Also, none of the five cases involve Stun Guns. Consequently, the court found that the 1996 and 1999 studies did not put TASER on notice that the Stun Gun could cause metabolic acidosis. The plaintiffs also relied on a 1999 study performed on behalf of the Department of Defense (“DOD”), which was published after Rosa’s death, and a 2001 article entitled Effects of Stun Guns and Tasers. The Court found that the DOD study merely states that “deaths following Taser use may be due to acidosis,” but does not establish a causal link. Further, the court ruled that the DOD study could not constitute generally accepted medical knowledge because it was not publicly available until after Rosa’s death. The 2001 article was considered the “missing link” between Stun Guns, metabolic acidosis and cardiac arrest because it hypothesized that Stun Guns may contribute to sudden in-custody deaths by affecting the acid-base balance of the target. However, the court pointed out that there was no attempt to test the hypothesis and, therefore, there was not adequate information to link the in-custody deaths to Stun Guns. The Court concluded that this “sort of hypothetical side effect” is not sufficient to require a warning under California law. As such, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the plaintiff’s overly broad interpretation of the scope of a manufacturer’s duty to warn. The court confirmed that a manufacturer is not under a duty to warn of every report of a possible risk because “inundating the public with notice of any and every hint of danger” would dilute the force of any specific warning given. Consequently, the knowledge of a potential side effect based on a single isolated report of a purely speculative link between a product and an injury may not require a warning. Indeed, a manufacturer is under a duty to warn of a particular risk only if the available scientific and medical knowledge makes it “known or knowable” when the product is manufactured or distributed. As such, the plaintiff must show that the defendant could and/or should have known of the risk by establishing a causal link between the product and the risk by producing generally accepted scientific evidence, not just conjecture and speculation. In conclusion, the court upheld the state of the art defense and refused to extend manufacturers’ duty to warn to include any and all potential risks associated with a product. Although the plaintiffs’ relied on peer reviewed articles to support the claim that the risk of metabolic acidosis was “known or knowable,” the literature did not present a triable issue with respect to notice because it consisted of an untested hypothesis and failed to establish a causal link between Stun Guns and metabolic acidosis. Because the risk was not proven through testing, it was merely an interesting theory and not the level of scientific evidence necessary to put TASER on notice. Product liability defendants can rely on this decision when challenging failure to warn claims based on the state of the art defense. In particular, in cases where the plaintiff relies on peer reviewed articles and studies, the evidence should be challenged based on whether it was publicly available at the time the product at issue was manufactured or distributed and, more importantly, whether it establishes a causal link between the product and the risk at issue. Even if the evidence purports to establish a causal link between the product and the injury, the Rosa decision concludes that it must consist of proven and tested theories. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, untested hypotheses are nothing more than speculation and conjecture and, therefore, do not give rise to a duty to warn.
The New 7-Hour Deposition Rule in California – Are the Exceptions under the New Rule an Open Invitation to Litigants to (Mis)Characterize their Claims and Defenses as Complex or Employment-Related? by Constance J. Yu, Sideman & Bancroft LLP
Beginning January 1, 2013, depositions in California state court proceedings (with specifically enumerated exceptions) will be limited to 7 hours. On September 17, 2012, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 1875,1 which effectively amends Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) to be analogous with the 7-hour limit in Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). AB 1875was backed by the Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), which claimed that the new law would reduce litigation costs for both sides. The organization also claimed that the legislation was prompted by CAOC’s members reporting an increase of lengthy depositions, in some cases characterizing the duration of the depositions as being abusive.2 The new rule will be codified in new CCP section 2025.290. While most legal practitioners will concede (at least privately) that the 7-hour limit makes sense, litigators will have a visceral adverse reaction that the new limitation takes an important weapon out of the litigation tool box in state court practice. Under the new law, there are enumerated exceptions from the 7-hour deposition rule, including both the type of case (designated complex cases and employment cases) and the kind of witness (expert witnesses and designated persons most qualified) involved. Although the time limit on depositions in California state court proceedings will now more closely conform with the federal court cases, there are some noteworthy distinctions. A brief overview of the similarities and differences between the federal and new state civil procedures is set forth in the chart below. Comparison between FRCP Rule 30 and the new CCP Section 2025.290
"FRCP 30(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit New CCP §2025.290
One day 7 hour deposition.
FRCP 30(d)(1)(“a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours”) Limited to 7 hours but no requirement for the deposition to occur on a single day. CCP §2025.290(a)
(a), Except as provided in subdivision (b), or by any court order, including a case management order, a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness’ counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony. Allows duration/time limit of deposition to be altered by stipulation or court order. Additionally, under the federal rules, the court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
FRCP 30(d)(1)
Same as FRCP 30(d)(1), but no express mandate requiring court to grant additional time in the interest of fairness. The new California statute also expressly allows the parties to stipulate to opt-out of the time limit for the entire proceeding:
CCP 2025.290(a)[court order]; and CCP § 2025.290(b)(1) [stipulation of parties].
[Other than by Stipulation or Court Order, No Express Exceptions to the 7-hour Rule] Express Exceptions to the 7-Hour Rule
The exceptions to the 7-hour rule under the new code are:
1. pursuant to parties’ stipulation [CCP §2025.290(b)(1)];
2. expert witnesses [CCP §2025.290(b)(2)]; 3. designated complex cases under Rule 3.300 of the California Rules of Court, “unless a licensed physician attests in a declaration served on the parties that the deponent suffers from an illness or condition that raises substantial medical doubt of survival of the deponent beyond six months, in which case the deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness’ counsel of record, shall be limited to two days of no more than seven hours of total testimony each day, or 14 hours of total testimony.” [CCP §2025.290(b)(3)]; 4. employment cases [CCP §2025.290(b)(4)]; 5. designated persons most qualified pursuant to Section 2025.230 [CCP §2025.290(b)(5)];
6. any party who appears in the action after the deposition has concluded [CCP §2025.290(b)(6)]. Under the federal rules, the court may impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.
FRCP 30(d)(2)
“Under the new statute, no substantive change is intended to the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the appropriateness of protective orders, court’s discretion to make any order regarding limitations on a deposition to protect any party or witness or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense.” [CCP §2025.290(c)] Accordingly, CCP section 2025.420 is the analogous statute regarding sanctions for improper conduct before, during, or after deposition proceedings under the California Discovery Act.
Under the federal rules, there is a provision expressly dealing with the procedure for objecting to a deposition while the deposition is in progress for conduct that is challenged as being in bad faith, or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. Where the objection is made, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.
FRCP 30(d)(3)
As set forth above, “[u]nder the new statute, no substantive change is intended to the Code of Civil Procedure...” [CCP §2025.290(c)].
Accordingly, CCP section 2025.470 is the analogous statute regarding the procedure during the deposition proceedings to suspend the taking of testimony under the California Discovery Act.
The new 7-hour limit appears to apply primarily to individual party witnesses. For many state court proceedings, particularly those proceedings with multiple parties, there will be considerable challenges and changes to the manner in which practitioners are accustomed to taking individual depositions. For example, in a case involving multiple parties taking the deposition of an individual witness, the parties will have to coordinate the examination so that each party has a sufficient amount of time to examine the witness, or seek an order or stipulation varying the duration of the deposition. With the 7-hour limit in mind, parties are more likely to abandon the early deposition tactic and will likely seek written discovery first, or if they elect to notice an early deposition, that deposition might be considerably shorter in duration in order to leave time for a further deposition following additional discovery. The downside is that sometimes early depositions can lead to early settlement discussions, whereas written discovery automatically builds in a delay of at least a month. In the case of an infirm witness, petitions for preserving evidence or testimony may increase dramatically if prospective litigants seek perpetuation of testimony pursuant to CCP section 2035.010 even prior to the filing of a lawsuit. Virtually every deposition requiring interpreters and translators will likely require a stipulation or order to extend the time limit – the duration of interpreter-assisted depositions being radically unpredictable from case to case. It remains to be seen whether litigants will try to frame their claims (or defenses) in a manner to qualify the case as complex or employment-related so as to be able to take longer duration depositions that the current rules of civil procedure presently allow – or avoid those complex or employment claims to take advantage of the new time limit for depositions. Courts may observe an increase in filings characterizing garden variety multi-party litigation as “complex.” Plaintiff litigants may also name entity defendants whenever possible in order to obtain person most qualified depositions that are also exempt from the time limit. Corporate or entity plaintiffs may consider assigning their claims to individual defendants to avoid lengthy PMK depositions of the corporate plaintiff. As distinguished from federal court practice, Doe defendants are routinely named in state court complaints, and the existence of Doe defendants may become important as a litigation strategy to procure another opportunity through a newly-appearing party to take a “further” deposition examination of a witness whose deposition would otherwise have been concluded. These foregoing examples are but a few potential ripple effects of the new 7-hour deposition rule that may change the landscape of state court pleading and discovery practice.
As the new rules take effect on January 1, 2013, counsel will have to be thoughtful about the kind of live testimonial discovery the parties really need to move the litigation forward. Constance J. Yu is a Partner at Sideman & Bancroft LLP
Anna Segobia Masters has practiced law for over 25 years and is a partner at Winston & Strawn in their Los Angeles office. Her area of practice is employment law, and she represents employers in class-action lawsuits and other employment litigation, as well as provides advice and counseling on all facets of employment law compliance. She is co-chair of the California Minority Counsel Program board of directors, and is active in civil rights causes. She provides pro bono representation to individuals with disabilities in the areas of education and public access and accommodation, and she also represents children in adoption proceedings, primarily for Spanish-speaking families. Growing up, her family had a strong influence on her career path, in particular her father, who she credits with giving her a sense that she could accomplish anything. Her father shared stories of sacrifices made by generations of family members who never had a choice of career, but who instead often labored under brutal conditions in the agricultural fields of California and Colorado. These stories stressed the importance of education as a means of creating choices and opportunities that would lead to a better life. More than anything else, it was her father’s influence that developed her ability to persevere and achieve her goals, and it was his influence that also motivated her to strive for excellence at whatever she chose to do in her career. She grew up in a gang-ridden area where violence and crime were common, and though this toughened her skin, it also provided her with a vivid picture of how the lack of education and career opportunities could poison a community. She credits her father for making her feel fearless about her pursuing a higher education and, ultimately a legal career. She is one of five children and she led the way in terms of education for her younger siblings, with a sister who is a nurse and a brother who is a trainer for the Seattle Seahawks. A legal career was not her first choice as she initially focused on careers that were visible to her in the neighborhood: police officer or probation officer. Her older brother, however, convinced her that she should look beyond the confinements of their experiences and strive for something more. That led her to a legal career. She attended UCLA Law School and began her career with a small law firm in San Diego.
Anna credits her first employer in San Diego for providing her with a solid foundation upon which to grow. Taken under the wing of a 30-year trial lawyer, she received one-on-one training and mentoring, which she describes as sometimes very difficult and challenging to swallow. In that same firm, she learned the art of building relationships, which others call “networking”. One of the partners at the firm was the president of the local bar, and he had many events to attend and many people to meet. Often, if he was unavailable, he sent Anna in his place and so she was forced to introduce herself on his behalf and learn to “work a room.” Being his delegate made it easier to approach people she did not know and this provided her valuable experience and opportunity to develop her networking skills.
If she were to give one key bit of advice, it would be to develop relationships and value your reputation. She stresses that your career is a journey; that the person you will become in 10, 15, or 20 years from now is very different than the person you are as you begin this journey, so buckle up and enjoy the ride.
Tulasi Hosain is Principal and Managing Attorney at
Perhaps it’s time to question our assumptions about the right timing. Certainly, every one of us has busy times in our lives, but we manage to find time to complete the tasks that are important to us. We have an even better chance of completing the tasks we schedule. As a friend of mine used to say, “when you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” What Can You Commit to Now?
As I think about my past coaching clients, there is one critical factor that separates the wildly successful and the moderately successful business developers. The former clients are actively engaged in one association. The type of association doesn’t matter, but the frequency and depth of participation does. Focus on client retention. Don’t wait until December to take a client to lunch. Start planning now for a date in October or early November. Offer to have a nonbillable discussion about your clients’ biggest concerns for next year. Follow up with referral sources or new contacts. If you have a fairly well established relationship, staying in touch by email or phone may be enough most of the time. If you haven’t done so already, send a LinkedIn invitation to your new contacts and offer to introduce them to members of your professional or personal networks. Whenever possible, find time for an occasional face to face meeting.
marthasullivan@earthlink.net; 415.472.7126
October 25: Los Angeles - Inside Diversity V:
Please plan to join us in October for INside Diversity V. Our program will include a lively conversation about diversity and inclusion issues today and presentation of the 2012 Profiles IN Diversity Award, followed by a networking reception. Details to follow...
2012 Legal Marketing Technology Conference / West October 11, 2012 | Hotel Nikko San Francisco The LMA Technology Conference / West is the West Coast’s largest conference focused on technologies that help law firms and lawyers connect with prospects and serve clients. The 2012 event offers 3 tracks: Small and Solo: What technologies work for small and solo firms? From social media to contact management, project management and virtual lawyering. Technology Trends: Social media, video, mobile, websites and more— where should you focus? What technologies deliver? Measurement and ROI: How to determine where to put your efforts and measure the results? Special Discount for CMCP Members! Discover more at: LMATechConference.com at CMCP Celebrates Hispanic Heritage
by Kathryn M. Agostinelli, Associate, Foley & Lardner LLP
On September 18, CMCP and its Host Committee presented an enjoyable night of networking, socializing, and inspirational guest speaking at an event dedicated to celebrating Hispanic and Latino heritage in the legal profession. Nearly 75 people, including many in-house and outside counsel, attended the event hosted and sponsored by the Los Angeles office of Foley & Lardner LLP.
The event was kicked off by opening remarks from Marci Rubin, CMCP’s Executive Director, and John Yslas, partner at Foley & Lardner LLP and a member of CMCP’s Board of Directors. The keynote speaker for the evening was Dan Quintero, who serves as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Sony Optiarc America, Inc. as well as Senior Managing Counsel and Director of Sony Electronics Inc. Dan is well-respected for his views on innovation and technology and was recently named one of California’s Top 20 General Counsel by the Daily Journal. He also recently received an award from the Mexican American Bar Association for his active involvement in the community, particularly with the Oakland East Bay Symphony and the East Bay Performing Arts.
In a genuine and thoughtful speech, Dan spoke to the anxiety currently facing our communities and the continuing dislocation and contraction associated with the same. Against this backdrop, Dan highlighted the moving stories of inspirational Latinos and Latinas (including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court Carlos Moreno) who overcame severe obstacles, often more difficult than those faced today, to achieve notable success. Dan stressed that adversity, no matter how discouraging or disconcerting, is often the path to opportunity.
Fueled with topics for discussion after Dan’s speech, the event concluded with continued networking and socializing among guests. We hope you can attend CMCP’s next event!
Members of CMCP’s Host Committee include: Richard Amador, Sanchez & Amador LLP; Lazaro Fernandez, Law Office of Lazaro E. Fernandez, Inc.; Anna Segobia Masters, Winston & Strawn; Raul Salinas, AlvaradoSmith, APC; Lupe Valencia, Wells Fargo; and John Yslas, Foley & Lardner LLP.
Job Announcement: Legal Counsel of ZACCC
The Legal Counsel of ZACCC will be responsible for reviewing, drafting and advising on commercial contracts. The selected candidate will be part of the Zone Americas Commercial Competence Centre (“ZACCC”), which provides legal support for commercial transactions of the North and South American businesses of Nestlé, the world’s largest food company. Candidates must have the quality of experience to immediately assume the role of commercial transactions practitioner. Candidates should also be able to speak and write in Spanish. This position will be located at Nestlé USA’s headquarters in Glendale, California. Some business travel is required.
For more details on this job and to apply, Click Here:
http://nestleusa.jobs/glendale-ca/legal-counsel-of-zaccc/30885806/job/
5:30 pm LEAADD Dinner
Queen's Bench Bar Association.
VABANC's 14th Annual Scholarship Dinner
Vietnamese American Bar Association of Northern California.
October 10, 2012 5:30pm - 8:30 pm
BALIF’s first-ever "Homecoming" Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom.
CWL 38th Annual Dinner - Portola Hotel, Monterey
Monterey. read more
SABA-SC’s Mentor/Mentee Mixer
Federal Bar Association Orange County Chapter.
Annual Judges Night & Awards Dinner
Out & Proud Corporate Counsel Award Reception The National LGBT Bar Association.
Fall Meet & Greet and First General Body Meeting
Blues & Brews Annual Fall Fundraiser
Annual Meeting and Member Networking Event
1:00 pm - 7:30pm
Unmasking Diversity Summit & MBC Unity Awards Reception
Save the date: WSU Speed Mentoring
A Celebration of Asian American Judges: Honoring Achievement & Looking to the Future
CHBA Annual Gala
Charles Houston Bar Association.