On May 2, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Shurtleff v. Boston, No, 20-1800, holding that because Boston’s flag-raising program does not constitute government speech, Boston violated the Free Speech Clause of the First...more
In a case telling a “sorry story of disloyalty and deception piled upon deception,” the Third Circuit has held that licensees, not only owners, have standing to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets and the right to be...more
Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for...more
A Vermont federal court dismissed a lawsuit alleging consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment against Ben & Jerry’s because representations about its dairy from “happy cows” did not run afoul of the law. But...more
The attorney-client privilege is one of “the most revered” privileges established to protect certain communications. The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held that it was improper for a trial court to order the disclosure...more
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J....more
2/4/2020
/ Admissibility ,
Appeals ,
Daubert Standards ,
Evidence ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Litigation Strategies ,
NJ Supreme Court ,
Reversal ,
Scientific Evidence ,
Supplemental Information
The District of New Jersey confirmed that members of a corporate family all are represented by the same in-house counsel, whether that counsel occupies an office within the parent company or within a subsidiary, because...more
The increasing use of electronic discovery in litigation and the attendant high risk of inadvertent disclosures has led the New Jersey Supreme Court to adopt amendments to New Jersey’s Evidence Rule 530 (Waiver of Privilege...more
11/18/2019
/ Amended Rules ,
Attorney-Client Privilege ,
Cross Examination ,
Discovery ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Evidence ,
Inadvertent Disclosure ,
NJ Supreme Court ,
Privilege Waivers ,
Rules of Evidence ,
Work-Product Doctrine
An unusual pet food case filed this summer in the District Court of Colorado has a pet food manufacturer as the plaintiff rather than a defendant. Lystn, LLC v. FDA, No. 1:19CV01943 (D. Colo. July 5, 2019)....more
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Least Burdensome Provisions: Concept and Principles: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, February 5, 2019, states that “medical device regulation should...more