One of the problems with so-called Lone Pine orders in MDLs is timing – they are usually entered way too late, more as vehicles to enforce settlements than as any genuine effort to weed out the large number of bogus cases that everyone, including plaintiffs, admits are present in MDLs.

We can’t say that the

Counsel defending depositions have a decision to make – whether, after opponent’s the direct examination of the witness is complete, whether to “cross-examine” a witness aligned with our own client.  Usually, the answer will be “no,” because such questioning usually offers no advantages and could well undermine the witness (who may lose focus under friendly

MDL defendants in prescription medical product liability MDLs have been complaining for years about thousands of cases being brought without the slightest pre-filing vetting – “plaintiffs” who cannot establish that they ever actually used the products of the defendant(s) they have sued and/or who similarly have no proof that they suffered the injury(ies) as to

As a follow-on to our post last year about remote (Zoom) depositions), we received a suggestion that we examine MDL orders to see how they have been handling remote deposition procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic.  That made sense to us because in MDLs every procedural jot and tittle is gone over with a fine-toothed comb. 

It’s been a while (since mid-2020) since we last updated our cheat sheet devoted to ediscovery for defendants.  That’s because, unlike most of our other cheat sheets and scorecards, cases involving defense discovery of plaintiffs’ social media can be found in a wide variety of non-drug/device contexts – other personal injury, employment, civil

With November representing the 18th month of socially distanced litigation, we thought we’d take a look at what courts have said about remote (usually Zoom) depositions.  Like it or not, we think they’re here to stay.

Yes/No

The first question is whether or not to have them.  Can one side impose them unilaterally?

The answer

We are careful when discussing discovery sanctions, particularly spoliation, for a simple reason.  The companies we represent that make medical products tend to have allegations about failing to produce discoverable information in the course of the litigation against them.  Indeed, there is a style of litigating against drug and device companies, and other corporate defendants,

Are protective orders worth the paper they are written on?  We have heard cynical attorneys pose that question, usually in a rhetorical fashion.  But our view has always been that protective orders—which we define here as court orders entered to protect against the disclosure of confidential information—are important and ought to be followed.  This view