If Rule 702 is supposed to keep unreliable expert opinions out, this decision raises a fair question: how many gaps are too many? In In re Covidien Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation, 2026 WL 1129617 (D. Mass. Apr. 27, 2026), the court considered a familiar lineup of expert opinions—general causation, specific causation, alternative design
This post is not from the Reed Smith or Dechert sides of the blog.
We previously posted about the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling that proper application of Delaware Rule 702 required the exclusion of plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac litigation. Since then, we’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last week, it dropped with a resounding boom. Today’s decision applied the Delaware Supreme Court’s ruling and dismissed over 80,000 cases. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Litig., No. N22C-090101, 2026 WL 1009008 (Del. Super. Apr. 14, 2026).
The decision focuses on the question of which plaintiffs are bound by the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts. The court denied plaintiffs leave to supplement their expert reports on December 1, 2025, and the defense argued that all plaintiffs with cases filed before December 1, 2025, are bound by the ruling. Recognizing that the litigation was about to be eviscerated, plaintiffs made a number of desperate arguments.
Continue Reading No Mulligans in Delaware – Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts Results in Dismissal of 80,000 Zantac Cases
Emile Bove’s nomination to the Third Circuit was controversial. We do not know enough about that controversy to offer an opinion, but we know it was about politics, and there is little reason for you to care about our political opinions. As we reflect back over the years, we calculate that our political opinions have
Today’s guest post is from Nick Dellefave, an up and coming Holland & Knight litigator. The Blog has rolled out a few posts on the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Nick adds to this opus with a dive into the intersection between scientific evidence, the role of trial judges
Last month we were one of the first on the web with a review of the new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition. Since it was nearly 1700 pages long – literally longer than “War & Peace” – we did only the most cursory of analyses, describing differences in topics and authors
How many times have you seen a lawyer end the trial direct examination (or deposition redirect) of his/her expert by perfunctorily asking, “Do you hold all your opinions to a reasonable degree of certainty?” Then there is the obligatory “Yes.” The magic words have been uttered. All is right with the world, right?
Maybe.
If
Yesterday we did our annual best of/worst of CLE, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Best and Worst Drug/Medical Device and Vaccine Decisions of 2025”. It was good fun for us presenters and hopefully at least mildly educational and entertaining for the audience. (If you missed it, the video replay will be available
Since it was published in 2011, the third edition of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed. R. Evid. 702. 2011, however, was fifteen
We have spilled a lot of blog ink on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 recently, so it was nice to see a case from our home state of California driving home the importance of following the rules when it comes to expert opinions. California has a reputation for allowing expert opinions into evidence more permissively