The unwieldy and sometimes unfair nature of multidistrict litigation has become a recurring theme on the DDL Blog. We have long commented on the “if you build it, they will come” dynamic that leads to hundreds or thousands of cases gathered, filed, and then parked in an MDL—all hoping to do as little
Discovery
Solid Discovery Orders in the Northern District of California
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today we discuss two discovery orders from a case in the Northern District of California, Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc. In this case, Plaintiff, a California resident, alleged that she was burned by a skin treatment she received in Taiwan with the Thermage CPT device manufactured by Defendant. Plaintiff sought expansive discovery from Defendant while at the same time trying to restrict discovery plainly relevant to her own claims for her damages. The court didn’t buy it.Continue Reading Solid Discovery Orders in the Northern District of California
Lifestyle Discovery Fair Game Where Plaintiff Puts Quality of Life at Issue
They say that in California everybody’s a star. Or maybe, in today’s terms, everybody’s an influencer, has social media, a blog, or—in this case—an autobiography. Today we discuss a discovery dispute in a California federal court that is somewhat unique, but that raises issues we see every day in drug and device cases. Continue Reading Lifestyle Discovery Fair Game Where Plaintiff Puts Quality of Life at Issue
Discovering Plaintiffs’ Social Security Numbers
While putting together our recent Camp Lejeune post on deliberative process privilege, we came across another discovery dispute that we’ve seen in prescription medical product liability mass tort litigation – plaintiffs refusing to produce their social security numbers. So we decided to take a look at what’s out there. We found that “Courts have routinely…
At Least One Aspect of the Camp Lejeune Litigation Isn’t Going FUBAR
Much of the Camp Lejeune litigation is rapidly becoming, in military parlance, FUBAR. Even prominent plaintiff-side lawyers have started calling out the avalanche of fraudulent claims that MDL-style solicitation has been generating. Congress permitted liability, so now the United States itself is being targeted by the same litigation practices that plague MDL defendants.
But the…
Medical Monitoring Plaintiffs Can’t Dodge Causation Discovery
Discovery is not a one-way street. Most plaintiffs concede that much. But they push hard to make defendants travel down a super-highway while traffic from plaintiffs bumps along an unpaved country lane. The truth is that it will never be an even playing field in drug and device litigation, or any corporate litigation. Defendants are…
Cost Shifting in the Tasigna MDL
This is my first post as a new member of the Drug & Device Law team. Like many of you, I’ve been a consistent reader of the blog for years and I rely on it regularly. I remember talking with Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann many years ago when the blog was just getting started (pretty sure it was 2006). Now here we are. I’m a partner with Butler Snow LLP’s Pharmaceutical, Medical Device and Healthcare practice, and I’ve focused my practice on mass torts for almost my entire career. I’m excited about contributing to the blog and welcome any comments. Now on to business.
MDL discovery is inevitably burdensome on defendants, and the challenges defendants face in attempting to limit the scope of MDL discovery are exponentially more difficult than in single plaintiff cases. Throw a few hundred cases together in an MDL, and courts seem much more willing to view the scope of permissible discovery through a vastly broader lens. So we read with interest decisions that limit discovery, place some of the burden on the plaintiffs, or—even better—implement cost shifting and require the plaintiffs to pay for some or all of what they seek in discovery.Continue Reading Cost Shifting in the Tasigna MDL
The Goose And Gander Of Buying The Science
For as long as we have been representing drug and device companies in product liability litigation, the plaintiffs have accused our clients of “buying the science.” Sometimes, this has allegedly been by funding studies or offering support to outside researchers such as free product or access to administrative support. Sometimes, this has allegedly been by…
Musing about Discovery and Artificial Intelligence
Some of us are participating in beta testing of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) for legal applications in the law firm environment. So far the verdict is – associates can breathe easy, at least for now. Nothing we’ve seen is capable of replicating legal research even at a first-year level of quality.
But that doesn’t mean that AI won’t impact prescription medical product liability litigation. In particular, we’re not surprised to learn that AI is being used in the context of FDA-required adverse event reporting, purported problems with which have become one of the other side’s go-to preemption dodges. Just a few examples from a simple Google search:Continue Reading Musing about Discovery and Artificial Intelligence
Lone Pine Takes Root in the Buckeye State
We’ve written about Lone Pine orders many times before. (Here and here, for example.) In brief, a Lone Pine order (so-called because that is the name of the seminal New Jersey case) requires plaintiffs to furnish medical evidence, usually in the form of an expert affidavit, showing that the plaintiff suffered from the…