So learned plaintiff in United States ex rel. Plaintiff v. Novo Nordisk, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174825 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2024), when the court granted defendant’s two motions to compel obviously relevant documents and information.
Plaintiff relator and intervening plaintiff, the State of Washington, assert False Claims Act (“FCA”) claims against the
If you’ve been practicing in mass torts for any length of time, you’ve probably dealt with MSP Recovery. We’ve posted about this Medicare Secondary Payor Troll many times (most recently here). One of MSP’s typical litigation approaches is to claim it has assignments of rights from certain Medicare Advantage Plans and then assert claims
We’ve all heard that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Some of us describe it as “the rule of poultry equivalents.” However you phrase it, we’ve always thought that if a defendant’s insurance is routinely discoverable, a plaintiff’s litigation financing agreement should be as well. Today’s decision from Delaware, Burkhart v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 2024 WL 3888109 (Del. Ch. Aug. 21, 2024), isn’t a pharmaceutical or medical device case, but it is the fourth decision out of the Delaware state courts holding that a plaintiff’s litigation funding agreement is discoverable. The decision adds to some of the positive case law and local rules related to litigation funding that we’ve addressed here, here and here. Continue Reading Litigation Funding Agreements Discoverable in Delaware
This post is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
When a news article starts with “Florida man…” you know you are in for a bit of crazy. Usually crazy and funny, but in a smack-my-head kinda way.
The lawsuit resulting in the decision in MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Ethicon Inc.
We’ve reviewed litigation precedent concerning causation-related genetic testing orders on the Blog twice before, in 2020 and in 2015. We even proposed a rule of federal procedure to govern the conditions under which such testing could occur, which predictably went nowhere, since there is no crisis – yet. Here’s another update.
As we discussed
To Zoom or not to Zoom? That is the question, at least when it comes to taking depositions of mass tort plaintiffs. We take no overall position on this issue, having been on both sides of the debate. Situational ethics govern us. Be that as it may, we view developments in this area with interest.
As many of you no doubt already know, the federal judiciary’s Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure gave its final approval to new Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1, concerning MDL practice, on June 4. Here’s some commentary. We’ve also mentioned the proposed rule here on the Blog. Bexis went so far as to file an extensive comment on the proposed rule, primarily decrying the frequency with which MDL judges simply ignored the existing federal rules – most significantly (although hardly exclusively) those rules that act to weed out meritless claims in non-MDL situations.
Throughout the process that led to new Rule 16.1, the drafters consistently refused to impose any mandatory procedures at all for early vetting of the hordes of meritless to utterly frivolous claims that are routinely filed in mass tort MDLs. Thus, we bloggers were skeptical that all the effort to create a new, entirely voluntary list of potential MDL management tools was worth the candle. Indeed, new Rule 16.1 stands out like a sore thumb among the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, precisely because it lacks any mandatory requirements. The new rule has lots of “shoulds” but practically no “shalls.” See Approved Committee Note and Text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.1.
Taking a closer look, we now believe that, if used according to its terms, new Rule 16.1 would actually be better than no rule at all, albeit not by a lot. MDL cases now comprise over 70% of the total federal caseload, so we still believe it is ludicrous that those cases are not subject to a single mandatory MDL-specific rule. But Rule 16.1 it is what it is.Continue Reading New Rule 16.1 – Better Than Nothing, But Not by a Lot
We are going to assume that Texans know a few things about horses, carts, barn doors, leading to water, and whatever other horse adages we can come up with. But when it comes to litigation, the Texas Court of Appeals took a firm line with a plaintiff who was looking to get deposition and document
Every once in a while, we find ourselves on a federal government corner of the internet, and we usually are surprised to discover (or are reminded) that these webpages often have materials that are worth knowing about, even downright useful, for our type of practice.
These sites are not always easy to navigate, however, so
One of the blogposts that generated a lot of “Thanks, I needed that” responses from our readership was our 2022 post, “Remote Depositions in MDLs.” For that reason, we have updated it by adding references to additional MDL orders on that subject that have been entered since early 2022. We pay particular attention to MDL orders because, due to their stakes, every procedural jot and tittle is gone over with a fine-toothed comb. The “litigate everything” mentality in MDLs produces the most comprehensive consideration of issues that arise in remote depositions generally. We asked one of our crack legal assistants to look for additional MDL orders during this time frame to see what MDL transferee judges – advised by the parties – have had to say most recently about the conduct of remote deposition.Continue Reading Remote Depositions in MDLs 2.0