Today we have a guest post on some recent developments on whether strict liability applies to software, apps, artificial intelligence, and other forms of electronic data, which depends, as this 50-state survey addresses, on whether such intangible items meet the common-law definition of “product.” It is by Reed Smith attorneys (and repeat guest posters) Mildred
Cordero v. Olson Assocs. P.C., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91994, 2025 WL1383217 (D. Utah May 13, 2025), is just another FDCA case. Except it is not the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that is in controversy, but, rather, the Fair Debt Collection Act. The plaintiff sued several defendants, including law firms, for allegedly unlawful debt
At a recent seminar, one of the sessions was a nuts-and-bolts discussion of conducting Internet, mostly social media, research into prospective jurors for voir dire purposes. It was quite interesting from a practical standpoint, but no law was cited that such research was even allowable (assuming courts could detect non-courtroom activities), and if so, what restrictions apply.
So we thought we’d take a look.Continue Reading Avoid Getting Into Trouble over Internet Research about Prospective Jurors
Some of your bloggers recently attended the American Conference Institute’s annual Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference in New York. One of the conference panels addressed a recent unsettling ruling in a non-drug-device case that held communications training provided by defense counsel for their client’s employees was not only discoverable but admissible at trial. In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, 664 F. Supp.3d 981, 983 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Moreover, some of the “practices” that found their way into the opinions seemed to us not only privileged but entirely unobjectionable:
Plaintiffs also point out that, for years, [defendant] has directed its employees to avoid using certain [legal] buzzwords in their communications. . . . Eight years later, [defendant] still was telling employees . . . “[a]ssume every document you generate … will be seen by regulators.”
United States v. Google LLC, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2024 WL 3647498, at *113 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2024) (citation omitted). That’s only good sense, and no different than the other side (at least if they have good lawyers) tells its own individual plaintiffs before they have to testify. Continue Reading Privilege and Lawyer-Provided Employee Training
So learned some plaintiffs in In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3060, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206474 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024). While not a drug or device case, the problem it exhibits is common to many mass torts. Plaintiffs’ counsels’ solicitations produce a rush to file complaints
Today’s case is not a drug or device case, but its holding is helpful to our clients who face state law nuisance claims arising from the acts of third parties.Continue Reading Court Shuts Down Expansion of New York Nuisance Law
Plaintiff lawyers read this blog, which we like. Criticism occasionally comes our way because the blogposts – horrors! – harbor a particular point of view. And that point of view occasionally gets recharacterized as bias or an admission against our clients. Such recharacterizations are invariably nonsensical. So far, they have never obtained even a foothold
When Summer temperatures rise, our analytical ambitions drop. Torpor sets in, and it sets in hard. It is no accident that it is in July and August when our posts are most likely to contain more pop culture than precedent. (Here is one of our favorite examples.) Meanwhile, this is also the time of
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
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.