For many litigators, sworn testimony today looks much different than it did two years ago. As the COVID-19 pandemic has required parties to limit travel and in-person proceedings, remote testimony for depositions, arbitrations and even trials has become the rule rather than the exception. With this transition, litigators have been confronted with unique circumstances and felt compelled to ask questions to confirm that the witness’s testimony is that of the witness, and only the witness. For example, is anyone else present in the room with the witness? Does the witness have any unauthorized lines of communication that could be used while the sworn testimony is proceeding? It has now become critical to ask a witness to swear under oath that there is no one else in the room with the witness and that no person is authorized to communicate with the witness during her or his testimony. Several recent decisions solidify this practice point and illustrate the consequences to litigants and lawyers when a witness surreptitiously communicates with others during the course of remote testimony.
The Rule 702 Toolbox: Cherry-Picking Is a Recipe for Exclusion
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”
Florida Rule Change Permits Immediate Appeals on Punitive Damages
The Florida Supreme Court has accepted a proposed rule amendment to permit interlocutory appeals of court orders on punitive damages claims. On January 6, 2022, the Florida Supreme Court approved by 6-1 an amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to allow interlocutory appeals of nonfinal orders granting or denying leave to amend a complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages. Prior to this amendment, a party could only appeal such an order by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. And in that posture, the appellate court’s review was limited only to whether the trial court complied with the procedural requirements for making such a claim.
Practically, this means Florida appellate courts will be able to immediately review trial court orders regarding punitive damages claims on both procedural and substantive grounds. With this amendment, the merits of a plaintiff’s punitive damages claim can now be appealed prior to any discovery of a defendant’s financial information. The new rule takes effect April 1, 2022.
Continue reading “Florida Rule Change Permits Immediate Appeals on Punitive Damages”
Software Liability: Why a Michigan Federal Court Decision is Relevant to Product Manufacturers Nationwide
Numerous products in our day-to-day lives incorporate or consist of software. The legal system, however, has been hesitant (at best) to bring software within traditional product liability regimes. Courts have grappled with whether to consider software a product and have largely found that it is not. However, a recent decision in the Western District of Michigan holds that software is a product—Holbrook v. Prodomax Automation Ltd., No. 1:17-cv-219, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178325 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2021). While Holbrook may be an outlier, it is significant. It bucks the trend, and potential defendants should be aware of it.
Background: Holbrook involved a wrongful death suit arising out of an accident on a robotic assembly line. The decedent’s estate (Plaintiff) brought a common-law negligence claim against multiple defendants, including the manufacturer who designed, built, and installed the assembly line. Plaintiff’s claim was based, among other things, on the software controlling the robots.
Pennsylvania Rejects Corporate Registration as Basis for Personal Jurisdiction
A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion provides out-of-state corporations more protection from litigation tourists, bringing the state’s general personal jurisdiction rules in line with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a unanimous court invalidated part of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, holding that corporations that are not incorporated and do not have a principal place of business in Pennsylvania cannot be subject to general personal jurisdiction simply because they have registered to conduct business in the Commonwealth.
Continue reading “Pennsylvania Rejects Corporate Registration as Basis for Personal Jurisdiction”
Circuits Split on CMS Vaccine Mandate, Highlighting “Great Significance” of Issue as It Heads to Supreme Court
Three circuit court decisions issued in the past two weeks have considered the CMS vaccine mandate, bringing the issue – and similar vaccine mandate lawsuits – to the Supreme Court in the final weeks of the year. The CMS mandate generally requires that facilities certified to participate in Medicare or Medicaid ensure their staff are fully vaccinated against COVID unless the employee is exempt for medical or religious reasons. CMS issued the vaccine mandate on November 5, 2021. It went into effect immediately, with staff to be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.