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
The recent decision in Cousin-Sabra v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25576 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2026) is short and straightforward. So too, therefore, will be this post. What we have is an ambitious plaintiff who filed a products liability/medical malpractice case against her doctors and the manufacturer of the device they
At the recent ACI Drug and Medical Device annual conference, Bexis created something of a stir by broaching the subject of litigation discovery into the “prompts” that are typically used to create output from generative artificial intelligence. A fair number of the attendees apparently had not considered that possibility. Well, it’s already being done, and
Our favorite aspect of being a prosecutor was the investigation phase. Snooping is fun. Figuring out what the crook did and how he did it made us feel like Columbo or Mannix. (Surely those references are lost on anyone under 50. Maybe we should have alluded to Poker Face.) Surveillance, telephone records, and bank accounts
We litigators love a good hearing. Judges asking sharp questions, counsel delivering crisp arguments, everyone believing they’ve advanced the ball. What no one loves—especially our clients—is realizing after the hearing that confidential business information just galloped into the public record. That’s apparently what happened recently in In re Suboxone Buprenorphine/Naloxone Film Products Liability Litigation
Another two years have elapsed (since October, 2023) since we last updated our cheat sheet devoted to ediscovery for defendants. That’s because finding good, pro-defense ediscovery decisions is a hard and time-consuming task – and getting harder. Unlike most of our other cheat sheets and scorecards, cases involving defense discovery of plaintiffs’ social media
Is it really an opposition to a motion to compel if the brief does not bemoan the plaintiff’s discovery “fishing expedition”?
We don’t think so. A license to practice law seems to mandate that the holder must use the fishing expedition metaphor whenever discovery is the topic. As a result, we were a little amused
We previously blogged about the bogus “scientific” articles in the cosmetic talcum powder litigation and the defendant’s relentless efforts to expose the likely fraud. Prior posts are here, here and here. If you do not recall the ongoing saga, here’s the quick refresher. Plaintiffs’ paid experts in the talc litigation published two articles that purported to study groups of individuals whose only potential asbestos exposures involved talcum powder. Those “studies” were based on plaintiffs in litigation where the authors served as experts. The defendant discovered that several of the subjects in the articles were plaintiffs in ongoing cases, and the defendant knew from those cases that certain subjects had numerous, potential exposures to asbestos other than talcum powder—thus undercutting the entire foundation of the articles. The defendant aggressively sought discovery about the study subjects’ identities and filed trade libel lawsuits against the authors.
Today’s decision, Moline v. Pecos River Talc LLC, 2025 WL 2898086 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025), involves a motion to quash a subpoena issued to Dr. Jacqueline Moline (who authored one of the papers) by Pecos River in the trade libel lawsuit brought against the other authors, Pecos River Talc LLC v. Emory et al., No. 4:24-cv-75 (E.D. Va.) (Pecos River was the entity created as part of Johnson & Johnson’s effort to resolve the talc-related claims through bankruptcy). We’ll call the defendants in that case the Emory defendants.Continue Reading Plaintiff Talc Expert Must Give Deposition Testimony in Trade Libel Lawsuit
We call a treating physician who testifies to more than just their treatment a hybrid expert. But doctors who both treat and testify can sometimes be less “Doctor Do No Harm” and more “Doctor Show Me the Money.” And when their treatment comes under a letter of protection (“LOP”), things get even murkier. Like, swampy
In what we view as a game-changing submission, on September 3, Lawyers for Civil Justice filed a 20-page analysis of no fewer than nine third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) contracts that, one way or another, have become public. This analysis rips away the veil of secrecy that has surrounded TPLF, analyzes why and how specific TPLF