Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products for Fall 2024.
Continue reading “In Case You Missed It: Faegre Drinker on Products — Fall 2024”
Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.
By Jacqueline E. McDonnell
Michigan recently signed into law a repeal of the immunity provision under its Product Liability Act, presenting a new litigation risk in Michigan for pharmaceutical companies. The provision had granted near-complete immunity to pharma for the past 30 years, as the only of its kind nationwide. Michigan’s new law — Senate Bill 410 — removes this immunity, leaving intact a rebuttable presumption of nonliability and caps on noneconomic damages.
By David F. Abernethy
Just before Christmas, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a lump of coal to product liability defendants: Sullivan v. Werner Co., 2023 WL 8859656 (Pa. Dec. 22, 2023), affirming a lower court ruling that barred evidence of a product manufacturer’s compliance with government and industry standards in a strict liability design-defect case. The lower courts held that such evidence goes to due care and is relevant only to negligence, not strict liability. The affirmance appears to support the exclusion of such evidence in design-defect cases based on a risk-utility theory, but leaves uncertainty for the future because only three justices joined the principal opinion; a fourth justice concurred with the result but concluded the record was inadequate to resolve the legal issue, while two others dissented.
By Adrienne Franco Busby
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released their long-awaited final rule regulating ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions from commercial sterilizers. The final rule comes after five years of development, over 1,000 comments, and with estimated compliance costs for industry of up to $900 million.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released their long-awaited final rule regulating ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions from commercial sterilizers. The final rule comes after five years of development, over 1,000 comments, and with estimated compliance costs for industry of up to $900 million.
The final rule differs significantly from EPA’s initial proposed rule. See initial proposal back in April 2023. The changes result in a still restrictive and costly rule, but with more time and options for compliance. These changes come after significant interagency discussions, including discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the impact of these rules on the medical devices, about half of which are currently sterilized by EtO. According to EPA, there will be no need for companies to revalidate their medical devices due to this final rule. It seems likely, however, that a facility’s ability to comply with the new regulation ultimately may affect sterility validation, so revalidation concerns should not be completely discounted just yet.
Continue reading “EPA’s Final EtO Rule Has Landed: What Now?”
Catch up on the latest developments of interest for product manufacturers. Here’s a quarterly compilation of the most popular blog posts on Faegre Drinker on Products.
By Eric M. Friedman
Burns v. Sherwin-Williams Co. is the latest in a line of cases that apply variations on a simple, common-sense theme — an expert who cannot articulate the applicable standard should not be allowed to opine that a defendant failed to meet the applicable standard. Such testimony is not a “shaky but admissible” opinion to be attacked on cross-examination; it is internally inconsistent, is inherently unreliable, and should be excluded under Rule 702.
By Christin Jaye Eaton and Eric M. Friedman
Though the pending amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 have not officially taken effect yet, courts already have begun to cite them, echoing the Advisory Committee’s sentiment that the amendments will not change the substance of the law as it was meant to be applied, but that many courts have not been applying it correctly. Litigants should follow suit, citing both the amendments and the Advisory Committee’s notes to alert courts that old precedent — particularly “weight, not admissibility” cases — may not be consistent with newly amended Rule 702.
By Eric M. Friedman and Ross W. Johnson
Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requires witnesses who are “retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case” — i.e., “retained” experts — to prepare and sign a report that discloses “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them.” In contrast, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) imposes less arduous disclosure requirements on non-retained experts and calls on the party, not the expert, to make those disclosures. As the Eleventh Circuit recently noted in Cedant v. United States, “an expert’s status as a retained witness depends on the original purpose of his retention.” As was the case before Cedant, litigants would be wise to support critical elements of their claims and defenses with testimony from a retained expert and not assume a court will allow a non-retained expert to supply what is needed.
For over a year now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been focused on reducing or eliminating ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions from industrial sites, commercial sterilizing facilities, and even hospitals. After a brief extension, the comment period for new proposed Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations closed at the end of June with over 1,000 unique written comments. It is anticipated that EPA is going to take some time to sort through those comments before issuing final rules, which are expected in March 2024. At the same time, EPA has forecasted releasing a proposed rule specific to hospital sterilizers in early 2024.
Next up on EPA’s agenda appears to be warehouses that store products sterilized with EtO. The looming question appears to be “where is your warehouse?” Onsite warehouses are the first to be in EPA’s crosshairs, but in classic agency style they are leaving the option to expand that focus open for the time being. Meanwhile, environmental groups are asking EPA not to wait to expand that focus, and states like California and Georgia are taking matters into their own regulatory hands.
Continue reading “Ethylene Oxide Alert: Where Is Your Warehouse?”
For the first time in 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the scope of the attorney-client privilege in the case In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397. The Court heard oral arguments earlier this week about when the attorney-client privilege protects communications involving both legal and nonlegal advice (dual-purpose communications).
A grand jury subpoenaed documents from the petitioner, a tax law firm, related to a criminal investigation into the law firm’s client. In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2021). The law firm withheld documents that had dual-purpose communications based on the attorney-client privilege. After the government moved to compel, the district court used the “primary purpose test” to determine whether the dual-purpose communications were privileged. The court used the test to determine “whether the primary purpose of the communication [was] to give or receive legal advice, as opposed to business or tax advice.” Id. at 1091 (citation omitted). In the end, the district court ordered the law firm to produce documents to the government after redacting tax-related legal advice. When the law firm refused, the court held it in contempt, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt order.
Continue reading “Supreme Court to Resolve Attorney-Client Privilege Split”
