Photo of Stephen McConnell

Last week we alluded to the utility of bench-bar conferences.  As if to prove that point, we spent Thursday and Friday at a conference on Multidistrict Litigations.  The conference was focused on the sources of, and possible solutions to, “protracted” MDL proceedings.  John Rabiej put the conference together, and that pretty much guarantees that the

Photo of Lisa Baird

We have spilled a good deal of ink on the Valsartan MDL.  The back-end of the blog says 18 posts (and counting) already reference Valsartan.  Why so many?  Because they usually are so bad.  Today’s post is more of the same.  Hence the deep sigh.

Today’s Valsartan opinion, In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products

Photo of Michelle Yeary

Depending on your age, today’s title may evoke images of Hayley Mills or Lindsay Lohan.  We won’t ask you which.  It can be your secret.  But in an industry where remakes are rarely worth the price of admission, the Parent Trap is a rare exception, and we won’t fault you for liking both.  Today’s parent

Photo of Eric Alexander

For as long as we have been representing drug and device companies in product liability litigation, the plaintiffs have accused our clients of “buying the science.”  Sometimes, this has allegedly been by funding studies or offering support to outside researchers such as free product or access to administrative support.  Sometimes, this has allegedly been by

Photo of Bexis

In 1919, J. Edgar Hoover described Communism as a “conspiracy so vast” that it was impossible for the populace to comprehend it.  The Palmer Raids and the first Red Scare soon followed.

That phrase echoed in our minds when we first read In re Valsartan, Losartan, & Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation, 2023 WL 1818922 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2023).  The Valsartan opinion was similarly mind-boggling in its scope.  It certified not one, not two − but four class actions:  one for economic loss, one for third-party payors (“TPPs”), and two for medical monitoring (“remedy” and “independent claim”).  Id. at *3.  Compare that to the state of class action precedent in product liability litigation not too long ago when we made this statement in 2007:

As far as we know, there has not been a single contested class action in product liability, personal injury litigation that’s been affirmed anywhere in the federal system in the decade since the Supreme Court put the kibosh on such things with its Ortiz and AmChem decisions.  That’s not limited to just pharmaceuticals, that’s every kind of product that’s made.

Four in a single MDL order?  These class certifications glommed together no less than 111 consumer and TPP subclasses.  Valsartan, 2023 WL 1818922, at *24.  These class certifications combined 428 different pharmaceutical products, produced and marketed by 28 separate defendants, with claims governed by the laws of 52 separate jurisdictions.  There’s no way on earth that common issues could predominate over individual ones, or that this morass could possibly be tried to a jury.Continue Reading An Abuse of Discretion So Vast….  Our Long-Delayed Critique of the Valsartan MDL Class Action Certifications

Photo of Bexis

In our recent ediscovery for defendants update, we highlighted two of the twenty-eight cases we included as the most important:  In re Tasigna (Nilotinib) Products Liability Litigation, 2023 WL 6064308 (Mag. M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2023), and Davis v. Disability Rights New Jersey, 291 A.3d 812 (N.J. Super. App. Div. March 16, 2023).  Today we’re explaining why.Continue Reading The Two Most Significant New Ediscovery for Defendants Decisions

Photo of Andrew Tauber

This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.

We don’t usually report on securities-law cases, but today we do. That is because the well-reasoned decision in question, In re Allergan PLC Securities Litigation, 2022 WL 17584155 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), has major implications for the parallel Textured Breast Implant MDL now pending in