Lawyers continue to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we discussed in a previous post, for litigators this may involve participating in remote depositions as courts attempt to keep discovery moving. We also provided tips for lawyers taking remote depositions. With thanks to our Faegre Drinker colleagues who have ventured into this new world and shared a great deal of useful advice with the authors, here we discuss some of the practical considerations for lawyers defending remote depositions.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to keep many lawyers, clients and witnesses at home. As we discussed in a previous post, many courts are encouraging or requiring remote depositions, typically by videoconference, to keep discovery moving. Lawyers taking these depositions will have to do all of the things they usually do and more to deal with the challenges of a deposition environment unfamiliar to many of us.
The COVID-19 pandemic has closed courthouses from coast to coast for all but essential proceedings. Most civil trials and hearings are on hold. Some courts are encouraging, and in some cases ordering, the continuation of discovery — including depositions using video or audio conferencing. Others have extended discovery schedules to await easing of pandemic restrictions. This post examines the different approaches courts are taking and the arguments litigants might make — or respond to — about whether to proceed with remote depositions. In a second post, we’ll discuss practical considerations for lawyers who choose to — or are ordered to — proceed with remote depositions.
This winter we discussed new regulatory guidelines intended to increase transparency in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) advertising including a proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to list prices in DTC advertising for drugs costing $35 for a 30-day supply.
In products liability cases involving prescription medicines, defendants sometimes rely on a preemption defense that FDA would not have approved – or in some cases, already rejected – the warnings that plaintiffs argue were required by state law. Where the evidence shows FDA considered and rejected plaintiffs’ proposed warnings, plaintiffs often argue that the Agency would have approved their proposed warnings were it not for some technical issue. For example, that FDA rejected the warning because the manufacturer asked to put it in the wrong section of the label or FDA would have approved it had the manufacturer asked rather than some third party in a Citizen’s Petition. In rejecting such arguments courts often point, explicitly or implicitly, to the presumption of regularity, which “presumes” government agencies have “properly discharged their official duties” unless “clear evidence” shows otherwise. See United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926); see also Nat’l Archives & Recs Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (requiring “meaningful evidentiary showing” to rebut presumption of regularity).