A chunk of our family recently relocated to Indiana, a lovely state that spawned prominent Americans such as Orville Redenbacher, Eli Lilly, Larry Bird, David Letterman, Michael Jackson, and James Dean, and that possesses fine covered bridges, a suddenly fearsome college football team, and a remarkable library that houses, among other things, the original manuscripts
[T]he common law of public nuisance is an inapt vehicle for addressing the conduct at issue. Mass harms caused by
Today’s guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Jamie Lanphear. Like Bexis, she follows tech issues as they apply to product liability litigation. In this post she discusses a pro-plaintiff piece of legislation recently introduced in Congress that would overturn the current majority rule that electronic data is not considered a “product” for purposes
In what we view as a game-changing submission, on September 3, Lawyers for Civil Justice filed a 20-page analysis of no fewer than nine third-party litigation funding (“TPLF”) contracts that, one way or another, have become public. This analysis rips away the veil of secrecy that has surrounded TPLF, analyzes why and how specific TPLF
Almost ten years ago Bexis argued that the Federal Rules were technologically out-of-date and proposed a number of topics that would benefit from rules-based codification. One of those topics involved machine learning – specifically use of predictive coding in ediscovery.
That didn’t go anywhere, but on May 2, 2025, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules proposed language for a new rule – Fed. R. Evid. 707 – addressed to the impact of artificial-intelligence-generated evidence in the courtroom. Here’s the proposed language:
Rule 707. Machine-Generated Evidence
When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only it if satisfies the requirements of Rule 702 (a)-(d). This rule does not apply to the output of basic scientific instruments.
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Agenda Book, at Appendix B, page 75 of 486 (June 10, 2025). This proposal is the product of three years of research and investigation. Id.
Continue Reading Federal Judicial Conference Evidence Rules Committee Releases Possible New Rule Pertaining to Artificial Intelligence
Today’s guest post comes from our Reed Smith colleague Jamie Lanphear on a topic near and dear to the Blog’s heart: The new EU Product Liability Directive. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the credit, and any blame, for their posts. But, also as usual, our guest posters deliver the goods, so we
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2024 WL 5049302, 2024 Ohio Lexis 2785 (Ohio Dec. 10, 2024), which was our third best case of that year, was primarily a statutory interpretation case involving the Ohio Product Liability Act (“OPLA”), and specifically Ohio Rev. Code §2307.71(b)
In this, the Year of Our Lord 2025, that title could apply to so, so, so many things. Soooooo many things.
But this is the Drug and Device Law Blog, product liability is our niche, and what we are referring to is the new, 2024 European Union Product Liability Directive (the “PLD”), also known as
The district court’s order applying Michigan law and dismissing one plaintiff’s complaint in the Tapezza MDL may be the last of a dying breed. The court faithfully enforced Michigan’s statute providing a presumption of non-defectiveness for FDA approved drugs and dismissed the plaintiffs’ case. But alas, Michigan repealed that law effective February 13, 2024, thus
A long time ago, in a mass tort far, far away, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were not content with collecting plaintiffs from within the US. They also brought a putative product liability class action in federal court in the U.S. on behalf of European plaintiffs. As a result, your bloggers learned a little bit (a very