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
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Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed.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
Our readership is tuned into current events and stays up to date on significant drug and device litigation. We bet no one missed that Taylor and Travis are getting married, or that a college football game being hyped as the biggest regular season game in at least a decade (Texas v. Ohio St.) happens tomorrow. We also bet that the blog’s readers know what GLP-1 inhibitors are—medications developed for diabetes and now widely prescribed for weight loss. At least one poll estimated that 12% of the U.S. population has taken a GLP-1 medication.
About a year ago, we posted about the successful efforts of the defendants in the GLP-1 MDL to have the court, rather than permitting unfettered discovery at the outset, instead tee-up certain “cross-cutting” issues that would impact the scope of the MDL. Yesterday we posted about the MDL court’s ruling on preemption of the plaintiffs’ design defect claims. Today we address a separate decision addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on a cross-cutting issue. In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 3094, 2025 WL 2396801 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2025).Continue Reading Trimming Down the GLP-1 MDL
Today, the summer solstice, is one of our favorite days of the year. It’s the first official day of summer, and readers in the U.S. will have anywhere from 14-16 hours of daylight (the farther north, the more daylight). We hope you get to enjoy some of the summer sunshine today—or at least this weekend. As the late, great, Brian Wilson put it, “Sunshine, can’t get enough sunshine, I’m following the sunshine, everywhere I go.”Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Rule 702 Exclusion of Plaintiff Design Defect Expert
Today’s post is a little different, in that it involves not an order, but a Motion for Relief from Judgment and to File an Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) filed by Pecos River Talc (“Plaintiff”) against Dr. Jacqueline Miriam Moline (“Dr. Moline”). Pecos River Talc LLC v. Moline, 3:23-cv-02990, Doc. No. 47-1 (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2025). Dr. Moline is a serial expert on behalf of plaintiffs in the cosmetic talcum powder litigation, and she was the lead author on a paper entitled “Mesothelioma Associated with the Use of Cosmetic Talc” (the “Article”). The article was faked, as we originally discussed, here, in our “Stupid Expert Tricks Redux” post. That’s even clearer now, as the Motion we discuss here identifies bombshell, newly discovered evidence that undercuts the foundation of the Article and Dr. Moline’s opinions. This is a true “smoking gun.”Continue Reading The Perils of Moline, Part II – Persistence Prevails in Re-Identifying Plaintiffs in Cosmetic Talc Article
From its start, the Blog has railed against certain expansions of traditional product liability that could have negative impacts on scientific progress and the availability of good medical products. Innovator liability, first described in Conte back in 2008, is a good example of a bad idea. Its offspring, the so-called duty to innovate
This post is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
When you represent medical device manufacturers in product liability litigation, you will deal with allegations that a device broke or failed because of what it was made from, and you will encounter both experts and “experts” (scare quotes intended) in materials science.
Materials science
There have been some famous law review articles, such as R. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” J. of Law and Economics (1960), and S. Warren & L. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard L. Rev. (1890). Those articles made waves when they came out, and they were cited endlessly. But when was the last
The District Judge in Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc. is evidently on a year-end push. We reported just the other day on the court’s order granting summary on the plaintiff’s warnings-based claims, but denying summary judgment on design defect. A few days later, the court ruled on the parties’ motions to exclude expert opinions. This
It is not uncommon that terms are used without knowledge of their origin and that the origin is instructive about the meaning or proper application of the term. We offer two examples. Many lawyers who at least dabble in product liability litigation have heard the term “Bradford Hill criteria.” Was it named after two different