On February 7, 2025, Judge Walker, sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled that the Plaintiff (a subsidiary of a parent company engaged in nationwide talcum powder litigation)...more
In a significant decision for plaintiffs litigating traumatic brain injury (TBI) claims, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma has denied a defense motion to exclude expert testimony based on diffusion...more
[DISCLOSURE: Although I do not represent the defendant hospital in Jabbi v. Adventist Healthcare, Inc. No. 2071 (Sept. Term, 2023) (March 5, 2025) (reported), I often represent Maryland hospitals seeking to exclude causation...more
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. affirming the certification of a class of owners of elderly dogs, alleging that the...more
The district court erred by admitting untimely expert testimony on noninfringement and by refusing to grant a new trial after the jury found noninfringement. Trudell Medical International (“Trudell”) sued D R Burton...more
February 11, 2025 Types : Alerts Meta Platforms, Inc. recently defeated certification of a class of consumers who claim the company lied about its user privacy safeguards and violated antitrust laws. ...more
In a toxic tort case, plaintiffs must establish general causation. If a substance is incapable of causing the type of injury plaintiff claims, then it certainly didn’t cause theirs. Under Texas law, toxic tort plaintiffs must...more
Class certification decisions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mark a critical stage in any putative class action lawsuit. Rule 23(a) requires plaintiffs to prove, among other things, that “there are...more
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the...more
Multidistrict litigation is meant to “promote the just and efficient conduct” of actions “involving one or more common questions of fact” by transferring those actions to a single district court “for coordinated or...more
As Nobel laureate Richard Feynman once observed, “[w]isdom is knowing when to ask the right questions.” A related proposition is that wise jurists know how to identify and focus on the right questions. Motion practice can...more
Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - This case involves claims of asbestos exposure. Plaintiff Robert Stephen Sentilles initiated this action asserting negligence and strict...more
United States District Court for the Northern District of California - In this wrongful death action, it is claimed that Decedent William Ankiel Jr. had exposure to asbestos-containing equipment during his service aboard a...more
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit - In this action, plaintiff Climmie Craft filed suit in this matter asserting that she contracted asbestos-related lung cancer as a consequence of her take-home exposure to...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
New Amendment Reiterates and Reinforces the Existing Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony - On December 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court adopted the Rules Committee’s proposed Amendment to the Federal...more
As patent practitioners know, Daubert motions can be some of the most hotly contested and pivotal motions in the life of a patent case. These motions are used to exclude testimony from an opponent's expert witness, usually on...more
In Cody v. City of St. Louis, 103 F.4th 523 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eight Circuit maintained its position that admissibility standards do not apply strictly at the class certification stage, thereby solidifying a circuit split...more
In December 2023, back when the ink was still drying on the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Southern District of New York excluded all five general causation experts proffered by plaintiffs in the In re...more
As we reported in April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified a question on California’s Learned Intermediary Doctrine in Himes v. Somatics, LLC, 2022 WL 989469 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022). The...more
A recent decision by Judge Novak in a securities case provides some helpful reminders on expert witness practice, particularly in commercial litigation, in the EDVA....more
When tasked with assessing the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, courts often cite the so-called Daubert factors as criteria that guide the inquiry. Among those factors is “whether the...more
In explaining the December 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Advisory Committee called out several ways in which “many courts” had “incorrectly” applied Rule 702 and failed to adequately discharge their...more
In December of 2023, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was amended. This provision is commonly known as the Daubert standard. The Advisory Comments state the amendment is only intended to clarify the standard and promote...more
Product liability claims require proof of causation. To be sure, they also require proof of some defect in the product and/or its accompanying warnings and product literature. But defect and causation are separate elements...more