Scott v. Amazon.com, Inc., ___ P.3d ___, 2026 WL 468578 (Wash. Feb. 19, 2026), is one of those decisions that makes us go hmmm. Here’s why.
Scott involves very unfortunate facts, four people who, in separate incidents, committed suicide using the same chemical, which they all allegedly purchased using the defendant’s online sales
Rule 32(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a . . . designee under Rule 30(b)(6).” Does that imply the converse – that a corporation’s affirmative use of its own Rule 30(b)(6) witness’ testimony is prohibited? This issue came up at a conference we
Revenue” Never Actually Received
Today’s guest post, by Reed Smith’sPaul Melniczak and Erin Apsokardu, is a little different. It’s not about product liability, but rather about a state tax issue with the potential for saving drug companies substantial sums. Since a dollar is a dollar, whether it is saved from bogus product
We commented about the King v. DePuy litigation several years ago because this was one of the cases where Pinnacle Hip plaintiffs tried and failed to use a turncoat expert. Well, this long-running (since 2013) – due mostly to execrable MDL management (8 years with no movement) rather than either parties’ fault – lawsuit
This database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content – typically fake citations, but also other types of AI-generated arguments. . . . While seeking to be exhaustive (972 cases identified so far), it is
To all in-house counsel working in the pharmaceutical, medical device, biotech, and digital health industries: if you can use a few CLE hours, we invite you to attend Reed Smith’s annual Virtual Health Care Week, taking place from March 16 through March 19, 2026.
This four-day all-remote event will explore recent developments, challenges, and opportunities
[T]he common law of public nuisance is an inapt vehicle for addressing the conduct at issue. Mass harms caused by
Last month we were one of the first on the web with a review of the new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition. Since it was nearly 1700 pages long – literally longer than “War & Peace” – we did only the most cursory of analyses, describing differences in topics and authors
Since the beginning of the Blog, we have shilled for only one product: Bexis’ “Drug and Medical Device Product Liability Deskbook” (published by Law.com and updated twice annually). While Bexis is continuing the blog in 2026 (after he turned 70), he is not continuing to update this treatise. Frankly, it’s a lot of
Not too long ago one of our bloggers (McConnell) critiqued a p-side law review article he had received from a lawyer on the other side with whom he was friendly. Bexis isn’t as friendly with opposing counsel – Paul Rheingold being a rare exception. But probably due to his activity in the American Law Institute