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
Here is the latest guest post from our Reed Smith colleague, Kevin Hara. He examines whether a prevailing party in litigation can recover, as “costs,” the expenses of witness depositions conducted remotely – a question that has arisen with increasing frequency since the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a general trend towards use of remote depositions. Since our clients could be on either side of this issue, Kevin’s research addresses both sides. As always, our guest bloggers deserve all the credit (and any blame) for their efforts.
Continue Reading Guest Post – Are Remote Deposition Costs Recoverable by the Prevailing Party? Maybe, Yes, Maybe, No.
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
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 CaliforniaThey 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
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
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
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