The court in In re Acetaminophen—ASD-ADHD Products Liability Litigation confronted a problem that should not have existed in the first place–plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel violating confidentiality and coordination orders that he had helped negotiate.
The underlying orders were straightforward. The MDL confidentiality order protected confidential and highly confidential information produced in the litigation and prohibited the
We typed the following question into a simple AI prompt: “What is the difference between admonish and deter?” The response started with “The primary difference between admonish and deter lies in their intent and timing: admonishing is form of active, often verbal correction or warning regarding past or present behavior, while deterring is an act
We commented about the King v. DePuy litigation several years ago because this was one of the cases where Pinnacle Hip plaintiffs tried and failed to use a turncoat expert. Well, this long-running (since 2013) – due mostly to execrable MDL management (8 years with no movement) rather than either parties’ fault – lawsuit
This post comes from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
Today’s case gives us two cautionary tales. First, there are many ways to make friends with a court. Dumping thousands of exhibits onto its doorstep and saying, “You figure it out,” is not one of them. Second, taking documents stamped CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Today’s case is not a drug or device case. It’s not even a products liability case. But it does deal with sanctions against a plaintiff and his counsel for intentional spoliation of text messages—conduct that could (and undoubtedly has) taken place in prescription medical product liability litigation. So, we’ve added Pable v. Chicago Transit Authority,
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
Four weeks ago, we posted concerning an MDL judge’s decision not to sanction a plaintiff lawyer for false representations concerning diversity jurisdiction. We disputed that acting in the client’s “best interest” was a good excuse and questioned whether MDL courts cut plaintiff lawyers more slack than they should. We also had a bit of a
This time of year, many of us are focused on the NFL playoffs. For someone who watches the Super Bowl for the commercials or the halftime show, which team wins may not matter much. For those devoted to a particular team, however, there is one possible result that will be truly satisfying. The reality is
We have lost track of how many times we have written on pelvic mesh cases as they have gone through a number of district courts on remand and occasionally up on appeal to circuit courts. One theme we have seen play out over and over is that plaintiff lawyers who took on more cases than
Stop us if you have heard this before. One of the big problems with MDLs in the era of unchecked lawyer advertising, litigation funding, and the focus of MDL judges on mass settlement is that a high percentage of plaintiffs never have to do any heavy lifting between filing their cases and participating in some