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”

Washington Appellate Court Holds Statute of Repose Constitutional and Applicable in All Cases Applying Its Product Liability Act

Statutes of repose serve as substantive outer limits on product liability claims after a certain time period following the product’s sale or use, potentially providing a complete defense in some jurisdictions and a rebuttable presumption of non-defectiveness in others.  But for a statute of repose to provide a viable defense, it must apply to the case at hand and survive constitutional scrutiny.  A recent appellate decision from Washington State provides good news on both fronts for defendants facing claims brought under the Washington Product Liability Act (WPLA).

In Erickson v. Pharmacia LLC, – P.3d –, 2024 WL 1905209 (Wash. Ct. App. May 1, 2024), three former teachers alleged injury from chemical exposure in middle school buildings built in the 1960s.  In 2018, the teachers filed product liability claims under the WPLA alleging that the chemicals at issue were not reasonably safe as designed and led to various adverse medical effects.  Because the plaintiffs had filed under the WPLA and the defendants did not contest that selection, the WPLA provided the substantive law governing the claims.  When the defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds that the claims were time-barred under the statute of repose contained in the WPLA, the plaintiffs argued that Missouri law (which has no statute of repose for product liability claims) should apply. The plaintiffs pointed to the fact that the chemicals were manufactured in Missouri and the manufacturer also had its principal place of business in Missouri.  The trial court agreed, and the case proceeded to a nine-figure jury verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Continue reading “Washington Appellate Court Holds Statute of Repose Constitutional and Applicable in All Cases Applying Its Product Liability Act”

A KIND Result After Insufficient and Biased Consumer Perception Evidence

Consumer perception evidence is necessary for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in a false advertising class action, but vacillating and flawed connections between the evidence and the key question of what a reasonable consumer would expect may lead to its exclusion.  The Second Circuit, in Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), provides an illustrative example of this, affirming the Southern District of New York’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ experts and grant of summary judgment to a snack foods manufacturer in a false advertising class action.

In Bustamante, Plaintiffs alleged they were deceived by the packaging of KIND snack bars as “All Natural” despite the inclusion of certain “non-natural” ingredients, and their lawsuit asserted warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and state consumer protection statute claims.  Although there were differing elements to Plaintiffs’ various claims, they were narrowed for the purposes of summary judgment to deception, materiality, and injury, with only the element of deception at issue on appeal.

Continue reading “A KIND Result After Insufficient and Biased Consumer Perception Evidence”

Expert’s Results-Driven Methodology Leads to Exclusion and Summary Judgment in Paraquat MDL

An expert witness is not supposed to pick a desired result and then reverse engineer inputs and methods that reach that result.  As the Ninth Circuit observed 30 years ago, “[c]oming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method.”  Claar v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 29 F.3d 499, 502-03 (9th Cir. 1994).  A recent opinion from the Southern District of Illinois offers a fine example of an expert with a results-driven approach and a court that called him out on it.

In re Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1659687 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024), arises from a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in which the plaintiffs claim to have developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of exposure to an herbicide, paraquat.  Four plaintiffs whose cases had been chosen for the MDL’s first trials offered a statistician (the parties disputed whether he also qualified as an epidemiologist) as their sole expert to establish general causation.  He had a difficult task, as no peer-reviewed literature established a link between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease.  Indeed, when the court asked the plaintiffs to identify such literature, the plaintiffs could cite only a single opinion article.  That article had been shared with another of the plaintiffs’ experts before it was published, leading the court to conclude in deciding a prior discovery dispute that there was reason to investigate “whether counsel for the MDL plaintiffs, their experts, or other third parties may have influenced the contents of the article for the benefit of one side in the MDL.”  2023 WL 8372819 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2023).

Continue reading “Expert’s Results-Driven Methodology Leads to Exclusion and Summary Judgment in Paraquat MDL”

In Case You Missed It – Winter 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.

Michigan Repeals Pharma Immunity Provision

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.

Pennsylvania Stays in a Minority of Two States in Prohibiting Evidence of Compliance With Government and Industry Standards in Product Liability Design Defect Cases

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.

EPA’s Final EtO Rule Has Landed: What Now?

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.

Missing the Mark: Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff’s Experts Opine on Defect but Fail to Support Causation

Product liability claims require proof of causation.  To be sure, they also require proof of some defect in the product and/or its accompanying warnings and product literature.  But defect and causation are separate elements of a prima facie claim, and both must be established – usually, through expert testimony.  As we have discussed on multiple occasions (for example, here and here), a plaintiff’s failure to offer admissible expert testimony on each element can lead to summary judgment.  A recent decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania offers yet another illustration.

In Slatowski v. Sig Sauer, Inc., 2024 WL 1078198 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2024), the plaintiff was an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officer who was injured when his pistol fired unintentionally during a marksmanship training exercise.  He sued the gun manufacturer, alleging that a design defect in the gun’s integral safety feature – specifically, the lack of a tabbed trigger – caused the firearm to discharge unintentionally. The plaintiff proffered two experts in support of the claim:  a gunsmith and a certified firearms instructor and range safety officer with a Ph.D. in ergonomics.  The defendant moved to exclude both experts’ opinions and also moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had no admissible expert testimony to establish causation.

Continue reading “Missing the Mark: Summary Judgment Granted Where Plaintiff’s Experts Opine on Defect but Fail to Support Causation”