Dasha Ternavska
Dasha Ternavska is a litigator with experience in U.S. courts and overseas. With a strong record assisting food and agribusiness companies in national complex commercial litigation, Dasha has represented clients in matters reaching 14 states and internationally. Dasha also advises clients in governmental and internal investigations, as well as with global compliance reviews.
View the full bio for Dasha Ternavska at the Faegre Drinker website.
Articles by Dasha Ternavska:
Citing the effects of carbon emissions on climate change and the potential for health risks, efforts to electrify America’s natural gas infrastructure are underway in various markets. Natural gas comprises primarily methane. Indoor appliances like gas stoves are also associated with emissions of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. The electrification efforts are making an impact at local, state, and federal levels.
At a local level, cities including Berkeley in 2019, San Francisco in 2020, and New York City in 2021, have banned certain natural gas hookups in all new building construction. San Francisco’s 2020 legislation applied to new residential and commercial building construction and required use of all-electric power. The ordinance was estimated to cover about 60% of the city’s development pipeline. It followed a similar ordinance requiring all-electric construction for new municipal projects in San Francisco.
Continue reading “It’s All Up in the Air: Recent Moves to Ban or Limit Natural Gas Appliances”
Most courts (but certainly, and unfortunately, not all of them) recognize that cherry-picking is a cardinal sin under Rule 702. Science generally requires a rigorous and conservative approach to evaluating cause-and-effect relationships. This schema inherently clashes with litigation, an arena where parties prioritize results over neutral principles of process purity.
“Cherry-picking” involves the selective consideration of facts and data to support a desired or pre-determined result, rather than the analysis of all relevant facts and data to find a scientific truth (or determine that the truth remains elusive based on the available facts and data). It evades the scrupulous adherence to principles of objectivity, rigor, and process validity that are the hallmark of the scientific method. In Daubert-speak, such a methodology does not produce “scientific knowledge.” Rather, cherry-picking represents a failure of methodology that cannot be waived off as a matter of weight rather than admissibility.
Continue reading “The Rule 702 Toolbox: Cherry-Picking Is a Recipe for Exclusion”
