Today’s post is from the Zimmer hip prothesis MDL, which appears to be winding down and which we’ve blogged about here. It’s a Rule 702 decision that excluded a treating surgeon who offered unsupported expert opinions about an alleged product defect. In re: Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis Prods. Liab. Litig., 2026 WL
Pedicle Screw Robots (and some World Cup)
You’ve probably noticed there’s been a lot of soccer going on recently. We don’t purport to be experts on the “beautiful game,” but every four years we find ourselves riveted by a sport we don’t always watch and sometimes don’t understand. The expanded field of 48 teams generated lots of unexpected excitement, and we thoroughly
Pro Se Blues in Texas
We’ve wondered if the widespread use of generative AI was going to produce an increase in the filing of pro se complaints and a marked change in their content. While the results are preliminary, at least one study shows a significant increase in pro se filings following the general availability of AI tools. And our own anecdotal experience suggests that, with the benefit of AI, pro se filings are moving from handwritten one-pagers to lengthy and more sophisticated complaints.
If AI is helping pro se plaintiffs prepare more sophisticated pleadings, we would hope that courts would become less deferential. After all, if generative AI helps pro se litigants bring their claims on a more level playing field, and if they’re bombarding courts with complaints, shouldn’t we see an end to the type of judicial indulgence in favor of pro se plaintiffs that leads to bizarrely pro plaintiff results? While we will continue to hold out hope, today’s case is an example of a court giving a pro se plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and, unfortunately, potentially expanding Texas product liability law into enterprise software.
Continue Reading Pro Se Blues in TexasCase Vetting Order in the Thalidomide Litigation
Today’s post is not from the Reed Smith side of the blog.
We remember a time years ago when the phrase “Lone Pine order” was not widely understood. That has long since changed, and now it’s tough to imagine anyone who practices in mass torts not being familiar with it. Indeed, we’ve posted repeatedly about courts entering Lone Pine orders in certain litigation. We also have a cheat sheet of favorable Lone Pine orders. But as we posted a year ago, the term “Lone Pine” carries a lot of baggage, and we suggested it might be time to stop using the name of a 1986 New Jersey case to refer to a case management procedure for requiring plaintiffs to establish the factual bases for their claims. Terms like “Threshold Evidence Orders” or “Case Vetting Orders” seem more appropriate, and dropping the Lone Pine description might generate less resistance from plaintiffs’ counsel and courts.
Continue Reading Case Vetting Order in the Thalidomide LitigationFraudulent Joinder and Some Easy Living in the Middle District of Georgia
Sometimes we read a decision in favor of the defense that makes it seem like getting the good result was easy. The court summarily disposes of plaintiff’s arguments, adopts the defendant’s reasoning, and might throw in a comment or two about things the plaintiff could have done—but didn’t. But getting those good results is almost never easy. The result is usually a reflection of good lawyering, hard work, and attention to detail (and of course, even with all those things plus favorable law, the client still may not get the result it deserves). Today’s decision, Giddens v. Tift Reg’l Health Sys., 2026 WL 555070 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2026), reads like it was easy, but we suspect that was because of the work that went into it by defense counsel. So, as we roll into our observance of the Memorial Day holiday and perhaps look forward to some legitimate “easy living” over the weekend, we’ll tip our hats to our friends and colleagues who do the diligent work on behalf of their clients.
Continue Reading Fraudulent Joinder and Some Easy Living in the Middle District of GeorgiaPreemption Round Two in the Eastern District of New York
About a year ago we blogged about a strong preemption decision from the Eastern District of New York, Gallego v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., 2025 WL 948282 (E.D.N.Y. March 28, 2025). Gallego involved a Class III insulin injection pump that sent a warning alarm to its user that insulin was no longer being delivered. The diabetic using the pump then spoke with a representative of the manufacturer who confirmed that the pump was not delivering insulin and that the user should replace the insulin cartridge. The user of the pump died later the same day, and his estate filed a lawsuit. As discussed in our prior post, the court dismissed with prejudice most of the estate’s claims, but it granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) that included a claim for negligent defective design and wrongful death. Today’s decision, Gallego v. Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., 2026 WL 1130316 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2026), applies another robust preemption analysis and dismisses the plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice.
Continue Reading Preemption Round Two in the Eastern District of New YorkNo Mulligans in Delaware – Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts Results in Dismissal of 80,000 Zantac Cases
This post is not from the Reed Smith or Dechert sides of the blog.
We previously posted about the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling that proper application of Delaware Rule 702 required the exclusion of plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac litigation. Since then, we’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last week, it dropped with a resounding boom. Today’s decision applied the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling and dismissed over 80,000 cases. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litig., No. N22C-090101, 2026 WL 1009008 (Del. Super. Apr. 14, 2026).
The decision focuses on the question of which plaintiffs are bound by the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The court denied plaintiffs leave to supplement their expert reports on December 1, 2025, and the defense argued that all plaintiffs with cases filed before December 1, 2025, are bound by the ruling. Recognizing that the litigation was about to be eviscerated, plaintiffs made a number of desperate arguments.
Continue Reading No Mulligans in Delaware – Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts Results in Dismissal of 80,000 Zantac CasesAdverse Event Reports May Not Be Used to Establish Causation
It’s hard to think of any recent litigation where plaintiffs didn’t seek overblown discovery about adverse event reports and then have their experts rely on those reports in an effort to establish causation. But as we’ve blogged about repeatedly, reports from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (“FAERS”) do not establish causation (and, for good measure, they don’t constitute newly acquired information). Today’s decision, Taylor v. Dixon, 2026 WL 865183 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2026), is a little different since it involves a federal habeas petition. But we couldn’t resist blogging about it given the court’s comprehensive take-down of the attempted use of an adverse event report to show causation.
Continue Reading Adverse Event Reports May Not Be Used to Establish CausationInjunction Granted against Revised Childhood Vaccination Schedule and Wholesale Reconstitution of Vaccine Advisory Committee
We’re not bashful about our affinity for real science. It underpins our clients’ ability to develop life-saving drugs and devices, supports Rule 702’s role in keeping junk science out of courtrooms, and reflects the skeptical habits of mind that should matter to everyone. Shortly before his death in 1996, Carl Sagan discussed with Charlie Rose the dangers of a society where fundamental understandings of science and technology continue to diminish:
There [are] two kinds of dangers. One is . . . [t]hat we’ve arranged a society based on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don’t know anything about it? And the second reason that I’m worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking. A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious who comes ambling along. It’s a thing that Jefferson laid great stress on. It wasn’t enough, he said, to enshrine some rights in a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. The people had to be educated, and they had to practice their skepticism and their education.
Carl Sagan’s Last Interview. Fast forward, and today we’re discussing a case where the court quotes Carl Sagan and notes that, in the context of vaccines, science is “the best we have.” Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Kennedy, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2026 WL 733828 (D. Mass. Mar. 16, 2026). Through a combination of good science and government oversight, the United States’ vaccination program has been a beacon for public health:
Congress and the Executive have built—over decades—an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government. One extraordinary product of that apparatus has been the eradication and reduction of certain communicable diseases through the development and use of vaccines. In the words of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), vaccines are one of the greatest achievements of biomedical science and public health.
Id. at *1 (cleaned up). That success in the eradication of certain diseases is based on a rigorous method by which decisions about vaccine policy are made—“a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements.” Id. In this case, that rigorous and well-established method (both scientific and legal) was ignored.
Continue Reading Injunction Granted against Revised Childhood Vaccination Schedule and Wholesale Reconstitution of Vaccine Advisory CommitteeUntimely Piggybacking
We almost never post on securities decisions, but we’re making an exception today. Our readers know that the initiation of MDLs and state court coordinated proceedings—often loaded with unvetted and bogus claims—can drive down defendants’ stock prices. When that happens the plaintiffs’ class action bar swoops in and files securities class actions, essentially trying to make the same defendant pay twice for the same claims. Call it the “unholy alliance.” Today’s decision (another one arising out of the Zantac litigation) is notable because it strikes directly at the linkage between mass torts and the securities class actions that try to play piggyback. In Roofers Loc. No. 149 Pension Fund v. GSK PLC, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44087 (E.D. Pa. March 4, 2026), the information contained in mass tort filings and accompanying discovery were enough to bar the securities class action based on the statute of limitations.
Continue Reading Untimely Piggybacking