Over the past two months, the practice of law has shifted to rely heavily on the use of technology. Communication internally, with clients and with the court is almost exclusively conducted via telephone or videoconference. But the New Jersey Court Rules do not provide clear guidance on the use of video testimony at trial — it is not expressly permitted nor is it expressly prohibited, leaving a gap in interpretation and application. Recently in Pathri v. Kakarlamath, A-4657-18T1 (App. Div. Jan. 23, 2020), the New Jersey Appellate Division picked the perfect time to get “plucky and adventury” and considered a party’s request to testify by video. The opinion clarifies that video testimony is acceptable during trial if warranted by exigent circumstances, and sets forth seven factors for courts to consider. Decided only weeks before the state underwent lockdown due to COVID-19, the court’s analysis is timely to say the least.
Subject: New Jersey
Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence Reigns Supreme: NJ Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Experts in Accutane Litigation
In In re: Accutane Litigation (A-4952-16T1) — an appeal decided just 10 days after oral argument — the New Jersey Appellate Division applied the New Jersey Supreme Court’s landmark decision In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340 (2018) (Accutane 2018), arising from the same multicounty litigation, to affirm exclusion of two of plaintiffs’ experts and dismissal of more than 3,000 cases.
The Accutane multicounty litigation involves thousands of cases in which plaintiffs claim the prescription acne medication caused inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The litigation has been divided into two parts, based on the sub-type of IBD injury alleged: cases in which plaintiffs claim Accutane caused Crohn’s disease (CD) and cases in which plaintiffs claim it caused ulcerative colitis (UC).
Think Through Representation in MDLs: Plaintiff’s Failure to Opt-In to Settlement Not Grounds for Plaintiff Counsel’s Withdrawal From Representation
It is well-established that lawyers seeking to withdraw from representation on the eve of trial face an uphill battle, if not guaranteed defeat. This was recently reaffirmed by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in HM Compounding Services, LLC, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw citing “irreconcilable differences” two weeks before the breach of contract matter was set for trial, and not surprisingly, the court required counsel to proceed with the representation.
NJ Top Court Tosses More Than 500 Suits Against Acne Medication Maker
On October 3, 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed 532 cases against Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc., the manufacturer of the prescription acne medication Accutane, holding that the laws of New Jersey – the location of Roche’s principal place of business– and not the respective laws of plaintiffs’ home states governed the adequacy of the warnings underlying plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims. The Court held that because the medication’s warnings were FDA-approved, “they enjoy a ‘rebuttable presumption’ of adequacy under New Jersey’s Products Liability Act ([NJ]PLA).”
Continue reading “NJ Top Court Tosses More Than 500 Suits Against Acne Medication Maker”
New Jersey MCL Update: Three New Consolidated Litigations in New Jersey
August was a busy month for multi-county litigation (MCL) in New Jersey: the Supreme Court of New Jersey designated three new MCLs and terminated one in a matter of just three days. Newly added to the MCL docket are the Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh litigation, Zostavax litigation, and Taxotere litigation. Meanwhile, the Pompton Lakes Environmental Contamination litigation has been terminated. Here is a brief update on these four litigations.
Continue reading “New Jersey MCL Update: Three New Consolidated Litigations in New Jersey”
New Jersey Reverses Course on Bare Metals Defense
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently published an opinion significantly affecting asbestos litigation and defenses available to certain product manufacturers. In Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc., No. A-3520-13T4 (Aug. 6, 2018) the court changed the landscape related to the “bare metal defense,” breaking from prior law regarding the scope of a manufacturer’s liability for injuries caused by exposure to asbestos-containing components or replacement parts in their products supplied by third parties.
Continue reading “New Jersey Reverses Course on Bare Metals Defense”