Discovery Archives - Page 4 of 6 - Faegre Drinker on Products

Category: Discovery

Witness Coaching by Whisper Leads to Sanctions for Defense Witness and Attorney

As noted in two prior posts, one on May 15, 2020, and the other on May 29, 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting explosion in the use of remote depositions present a number of novel issues for lawyers to consider, whether taking or defending depositions. Regardless of these “unprecedented times,” some things remain the same, including that it is improper for a witness to be coached about answers while the deposition is occurring.

Continue reading “Witness Coaching by Whisper Leads to Sanctions for Defense Witness and Attorney”

Second Circuit Affirms Mirena MDL Court’s “Hard Look” at Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Methodology

On December 8, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Southern District of New York’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Bayer — and resulting closure of all cases against Bayer — in the Mirena multidistrict litigation (MDL). In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II), No. 19-2155, 2020 WL 7214264 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2020).

In the MDL, the plaintiffs alleged that the Mirena Intrauterine System had caused them to develop idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). The District Court elected to focus first on whether the plaintiffs had evidence sufficient to establish general causation. The District Court held a Daubert hearing that lasted three days and featured testimony by 19 general causation witnesses — 7 for the plaintiffs and 12 for Bayer. On October 24, 2018, the District Court entered a detailed 156-page opinion granting Bayer’s Daubert motion as to all of the plaintiffs’ experts and denying as moot plaintiffs’ motion to preclude Bayer’s experts. In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Prods. Liab. Litig., 341 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Bayer then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the District Court granted for lack of general causation and dismissed all cases in the Mirena MDL.

Continue reading “Second Circuit Affirms Mirena MDL Court’s “Hard Look” at Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Methodology”

New Conferral Requirement for Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions Effective December 1

The last month of the year brought changes to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 30(b)(6), governing deposition notices to organizations. The rule was amended, effective December 1, 2020.

Continue reading “New Conferral Requirement for Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions Effective December 1”

District Court Requires Plaintiff to Disclose Evidence About Noneconomic Loss

When plaintiffs request damages for noneconomic loss such as pain and suffering, courts are split on whether a defendant can require a plaintiff to disclose during discovery how much the plaintiff intends to ask the jury to award in noneconomic damages. A recent decision from a federal district court in Minnesota, however, required the plaintiff to do just that.

In Lewis v. City of Burnsville, 2020 WL 3496990 (D. Minn. June 29, 2020), the defendants asked the plaintiff during discovery to itemize the damages that she was seeking and “produce documentary support for her damages claim.” The plaintiff declined to provide this information, arguing that it was impossible to calculate her noneconomic loss. The magistrate judge, however, ruled that the plaintiff had to disclose how much she was seeking in noneconomic damages “along with the basis for that figure,” if the plaintiff intended to ask the jury for a specific dollar amount (or range) of noneconomic damages at trial.

Continue reading “District Court Requires Plaintiff to Disclose Evidence About Noneconomic Loss”

A Litigator’s Guide to the 2020 New Jersey Rule Amendments

The New Jersey Court Rules were amended in July 2020, effective September 1, 2020. A number of these amendments are important for litigators, and this post provides a summary.

New Jersey Court Rules Governing Motion Practice

Rule 4:6-2: Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Rule 4:6-2 (“How Presented”) governs assertion of defenses. The amendments target the Rule’s provisions governing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Previously, motions to dismiss were calendared on New Jersey’s typical 16-day cycle for motions, with motion papers required to be filed at least 16 days prior to the motion’s return date. The amended Rule now requires such motion papers to be served in accordance with Rule 4:46-1 – New Jersey’s Rule governing summary judgment motions.

Continue reading “A Litigator’s Guide to the 2020 New Jersey Rule Amendments”

Ninth Circuit’s Ingredients List Rule Keeps Nestlé in Hot Water with Denial of Nestlé’s Statute of Limitations-Based Summary Judgment Motion

The Northern District of California recently applied the Ninth Circuit’s ingredients list rule in a putative class action decision. The Court refused to grant Nestlé USA Inc.’s summary judgment motion based on the statute of limitations in a suit involving allegations that Nestlé misleads consumers about the trans-fat content of their Coffee Mate creamer products. The Court held that a triable issue of fact remained because it was not clear when the consumer first learned about the alleged deception.

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit’s Ingredients List Rule Keeps Nestlé in Hot Water with Denial of Nestlé’s Statute of Limitations-Based Summary Judgment Motion”