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
We can hardly think of a more useful recent law review article than D. Capra & L. Richter, “The Difference a Year Makes: The Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony under the 2023 Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” 111 Cornell L. Rev. 127 (2026). Here is an online link. The authors are affiliated
This case is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
It’s a relatively new term (at least for us Gen Xers) – but we have all been ghosted. A second date that never gets confirmed. A contractor who quotes the job and then vanishes. A group text that just stops. It stings, but usually
Today’s post is from the Zimmer hip prothesis MDL, which appears to be winding down and which we’ve blogged about here. It’s a Rule 702 decision that excluded a treating surgeon who offered unsupported expert opinions about an alleged product defect. In re: Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis Prods. Liab. Litig., 2026 WL
As we have said before, the Blog is unabashedly pro-science. There is a difference between good science and bad science, and reliance on the latter to make any important decision—be it in everyday life, litigation, or public policy—is not smart. We are also unabashedly in favor of strict application of the Rules of Evidence
New Jersey law requires that trial courts conduct a “rigorous gatekeeping” analysis when assessing the admissibility of expert opinions. That’s the Accutane standard, named for the New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Accutane, 234 N.J. 340 (2018). To the extent there was any ambiguity on whether Accutane applies to all civil cases
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