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
12/16/2024
/ Admissibility ,
Causation ,
Daubert Standards ,
Disclosure ,
Discovery ,
Evidence ,
Exclusionary Clauses ,
Expert Testimony ,
Expert Witness ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
Rule of Evidence 702
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but that doesn’t make the camera an expert witness. Product liability actions usually require expert testimony to prove defect and causation. Pictures, like other documents, can be...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
We think Lone Pine orders are pretty fair. Lone Pine orders are case management orders that require plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation (MDL) to produce specific evidence without which the plaintiffs cannot make a prima...more
Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 govern the admissibility of lay and expert opinion testimony, respectively, in federal courts. Rule 701(c) helps paint the line between the two, providing that an opinion “based on...more
For decades, both state and federal courts in Michigan have routinely applied the learned intermediary doctrine in products liability cases involving prescription medical products. Under the doctrine, a manufacturer’s duty to...more
In March 2022, the In re Zostavax MDL court entered a Lone Pine order requiring plaintiffs who claimed to have developed shingles as a result of using the Zostavax vaccine to produce certain test results supporting causation....more
Picture a deposition of a plaintiff’s treating physician. Early in the deposition, defense counsel asks the usual questions about the physician’s communications with the plaintiff’s counsel. But the plaintiff’s counsel,...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
Georgia’s product liability statute of repose requires actions to be commenced within 10 years of “the date of the first sale for use or consumption” of the product at issue. OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2) (emphasis added). While the...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
Statutes of repose serve as substantive outer limits on product liability claims after a certain time period following the product’s sale or use, potentially providing a complete defense in some jurisdictions and a rebuttable...more
An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result. As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing...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
Federal preemption can be a very powerful defense. For example, claims concerning Class III medical devices requiring pre-market approval are generally preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 360c, et...more
The longer and more frequently a principle is repeated by the courts, the more difficult it can be for courts to acknowledge change. As illustrated by the First Circuit’s opinion in Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal, Inc.,...more
The Committee Notes to the newly implemented amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 make clear that the “[j]udicial gatekeeping” of expert evidence is “essential.” Federal courts in New York have played an important role...more
Fun fact: There are 23 holidays that can be celebrated today, December 1st. Some, like Rosa Parks Day and World AIDS Day, are solemn and serious. Others are silly and fun, like National Peppermint Bark Day and National...more
If you don’t know where a line is, you can’t say whether someone has crossed it. That principle applies in spades to expert witnesses, particularly when their role in the case calls on them to help the jury understand where...more
Though the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 have not taken effect officially yet, courts already have begun to cite them. Early signs indicate the potential that, consistent with the comments by the Advisory...more
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) outlines two different sets of pretrial disclosure requirements, imposing more onerous requirements on “retained” than “non-retained” experts. Relatedly, when non-retained expert...more
Key Takeaway: In Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Labno-Fritchley, 207 N.E.3d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in a product liability case. The court...more