Discovery Archives - Faegre Drinker on Products

Category: Discovery

Ten Things to Know About the European Union’s New Product Liability Directive

After it was initially proposed more than two years ago, the European Union passed a new product liability directive (PLD) on Dec. 9, 2024, which prescribes a new legislative framework to expand and modify product liability laws created by the current PLD (originally enacted in 1985). As with other EU directives, the PLD sets legislative and policy goals that the EU’s 27 member states are obligated to implement into national law. For the PLD, they must do so within two years — by December 2026.

The new PLD was presented during the legislative phase as a modernization of pre-Internet Age laws from the 1980s. But beneath that exterior, the new PLD makes various substantive changes that are likely to increase litigation risk and costs for companies doing business in Europe. These changes will impact not only manufacturers of consumer products traditionally subject to product liability law, but also other businesses such as technology and software companies, which will be subjected to product liability law for the first time.

Continue reading “Ten Things to Know About the European Union’s New Product Liability Directive”

To Depose or Not to Depose: When Challenging Opposing Nonretained Experts Becomes Challenging

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires parties to disclose the opinions of experts who may present evidence at trial. If the disclosures are inadequate, Rule 37(c) requires exclusion of the opinions “unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” This almost automatic exclusionary rule can pose issues when deciding whether to depose an opposing expert. Although “Rule 26(a)(2) does not allow parties to cure deficient expert reports by supplementing them with later deposition testimony,” Ciomber v. Coop. Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 642 (7th Cir. 2008), some courts nevertheless may consider an inadequate disclosure to be “harmless” once the expert’s opinions have been fully explored at deposition. On the other hand, although “[c]ourts have uniformly rejected the [idea] that the failure to depose an expert affects the right to object to the expert’s testimony,” Hinton v. Outboard Marine Corp., 828 F. Supp. 2d 366, 370 (D. Me. 2011) (collecting cases), a party may need to depose an opposing expert in order to properly set up a challenge to the expert’s opinions for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or trial if the court deems the expert’s disclosure adequate. This issue becomes particularly acute as applied to nonretained experts, who need not provide a written report under Rule 26. A recent opinion from the Northern District of Indiana aptly illustrates the quandary.

In Macchia v. Landline Trans, LLC, No. 2:21-CV-398, 2024 WL 4751091 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 12, 2024), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident and proffered three of his treating physicians as experts to opine on his injuries and causation. The defendants filed a three-pronged motion to exclude the experts. Notably, the defendants elected not to take the depositions of any of the three physicians. Indeed, the court’s opinion repeatedly observed how the lack of deposition testimony made it “a bit of a challenge” to summarize the background facts and adjudicate the motion.

Continue reading “To Depose or Not to Depose: When Challenging Opposing Nonretained Experts Becomes Challenging”

New EU Product Liability Directive Published in Official Journal

The countdown has begun towards the transformed European product liability landscape! The recently adopted European Union Product Liability Directive (PLD) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union today. Transposition of the PLD into domestic law of the EU member states must be completed by December 9, 2026. As we previously discussed, products put on the market after December 9, 2026, will be subject to the new PLD, while products placed on the market prior to this date will be subject to the laws currently in place.

Further information about the new PLD (including new risks and opportunities for businesses operating in the EU) can be found in our previous updates here and here. Faegre Drinker will continue to monitor developments as the member states transpose the PLD and the new rules take shape.

Affirmative Defenses; Collective Redress Directive; Discovery

On October 10, the European Council adopted the European Union’s new Directive on Liability for Defective Products (PLD). The Council’s adoption of the new PLD represents a momentous step towards a complete restructuring of the EU’s product liability landscape as it will replace the current 40-year-old directive and soon become the EU’s new governing regime. The new PLD will enter into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Thereafter, member states will have two years to transpose the directive into national law. Alongside the new Representative Actions Directive implemented last year, the product liability legal landscape is in the process of a great transformation in Europe.

Read the full article on the Faegre Drinker website.

Ayotte v. National Basketball Association: Plaintiff Can’t Hide the Ball on Communications Between Counsel and Non-Retained Treater Expert

Picture a deposition of a plaintiff’s treating physician. Early in the deposition, defense counsel asks the usual questions about the physician’s communications with the plaintiff’s counsel. But the plaintiff’s counsel, claiming that the physician is a non-retained expert whom the plaintiff’s counsel represents in connection with the action, objects on the basis of privilege and instructs the physician not to answer. That can’t be right, but exactly why not? And if such communications are discoverable, then why wouldn’t communications between defense counsel and a corporate defendant’s employee who is designated as a non-retained expert be discoverable as well? A recent order from the Southern District of New York offers clarity.

In Ayotte v. National Basketball Association, 2024 WL 3409027 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 15, 2024), the plaintiffs designated a treating psychologist as a non-retained expert and claimed he was represented in connection with the action by the plaintiffs’ counsel. Thus, when the defendant sought to discover communications between the plaintiffs’ counsel and the treating psychologist, the plaintiffs argued they were privileged.

Continue reading “Ayotte v. National Basketball Association: Plaintiff Can’t Hide the Ball on Communications Between Counsel and Non-Retained Treater Expert”

Upcoming Changes to Florida’s Civil Procedure Rules: What Litigators and their Clients Need to Know

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court released two opinions [here and here] announcing changes to its rules of civil procedure in an attempt “to promote the fair and timely resolution of civil cases.” The amendments are broad and apply to many aspects of case management, scheduling, and discovery. Thus, Florida practitioners will want to familiarize themselves with the new variants before they go into effect on January 1, 2025. The following discussion highlights a subset of the changes that appear most likely to have an impact throughout a case’s lifetime.

Litigators will feel the impact right from the jump. While the current rules permit the courts more leeway when scheduling deadlines, the newly re-written Rule 1.200 will give courts 120 days to assign each case to one of three case management tracks—complex, general, or streamlined. The court may customize the process according to its needs, but the judge must set an actual or projected trial period according to the specified case management track. These buffed requirements will provide litigants with clearer expectations in their case’s timeline, and other changes work to ensure those dates—including trial—are delayed as little as possible. For example, under the modified Rule 1.200, attorneys must follow specific steps to modify case management deadlines, otherwise deadlines “must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.” Moreover, one noteworthy change to Rule 1.460 provides that “motions to continue trial are disfavored and should be rarely granted and then only upon good cause shown.” [No. SC2023-0962 at 7–8.]

Continue reading “Upcoming Changes to Florida’s Civil Procedure Rules: What Litigators and their Clients Need to Know”