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
Yesterday we did our annual best of/worst of CLE, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Best and Worst Drug/Medical Device and Vaccine Decisions of 2025”. It was good fun for us presenters and hopefully at least mildly educational and entertaining for the audience. (If you missed it, the video replay will be available
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Evidence has been the go-to guide for federal judges seeking to sort out scientific testimony, and a major source of non-precedential authority for both sides when arguing motions under Fed.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
This “just desserts” story caught our eyes earlier this year – a hot-shot expert witness, on artificial intelligence, no less, got caught with his own hand in the AI cookie jar. As a result, his credibility was destroyed, and his testimony was excluded. The litigation leading to Kohls v. Ellison, 2025 WL 66514 (D.
Back in April, we pondered whether the new judge in the Valsartan MDL would change things for the better. In contrast to the Zantac MDL, which was established a year later and has proceeded on a very similar contamination theory, the first several years of the Valsartan MDL saw a bunch of bad rulings on
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
Lawyers like to grouse about their lot in life. We complain about stress and the things that most contribute to such stress: hard work and unpleasant people. But if you labor long enough in this profession, you end up running into many excellent folks. By “excellent,” we mean brilliant and generous. We’ve long deployed a
Not that long ago (last time we posted), the Sixth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion that affirmed the exclusion of an expert (yay!) but missed the boat on the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and its reinforcement of the expert exclusion test (boo!).
Today, we get to tell you about a
While updating the preemption chapter of his drug and device product liability treatise, Bexis came across a proposition he had not thought about in a long time. In two opinions in the Birmingham Hip (“BHR”) MDL, the court, under the aegis of Fed. R. Evid. 702, excluded expert testimony because it solely
This post is from the non-Butler Snow side of the blog.
In Hill v. Medical Device Business Services, Inc., No. 24-5797, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 17835, 2025 WL 1950300 (6th Cir. July 16, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed an expert exclusion/Rule 702/Don’t Say Daubert decision in a case that we last wrote about