The Blog has written about a J&J subsidiary’s litigation against the other side’s junk-science talc “experts” on several occasions. Recently, however, those experts managed to obtain summary judgment against the trade libel action brought by the subsidiary over the expert’s blatantly false “scientific” article about talc. Pecos River Talc LLC v. Emory, 2026
If Wile E. Coyote sued the Acme Products Co. over a defective anvil that fell on his head, would he get to take discovery on Acme rocket sleds? Or Acme explosives? Or Acme spring-loaded shoes meant to propel the shoes’ wearers to soaring heights at stupendous speeds? We ask these questions because a federal court
The court in In re Acetaminophen—ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation confronted a problem that should not have existed in the first place–plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel violating confidentiality and coordination orders that he had helped negotiate.
The underlying orders were straightforward. The MDL confidentiality order protected confidential and highly confidential information produced in the litigation and prohibited the
Bexis has been working with Lawyers for Civil Justice on a number of projects, including the currently pending initiative to enact a federal rules amendment that requires meaningful disclosure of third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) on essentially the same rationale that insurance policies are routinely disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1)(A)(iv). As part of
Bexis recently attended the Spring Conference of the Product Liability Advisory Council (“PLAC”). PLAC meetings are usually good for new blogpost ideas, and this one was no exception. Today’s idea comes from an unusual source, though – the final day’s ethics presentation. That presentation was about artificial intelligence, mostly in the mass tort context. One
Today’s guest post is another tech-related discussion from Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Given the increasing ubiquity of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in legal practice, the notion of AI prompts and output becoming yet another front in the never-ending ediscovery wars is concerning. Here are Jamie’s latest thoughts on the latest pertinent caselaw in this
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