Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Playing Poker with Experts
Many product liability defense lawyers have had great success at one time or another in taking the deposition of a plaintiff's key engineering expert. They can tell you stories about depositions when the expert: 1) offered opinions inconsistent with prior expert reports, deposition or trial testimony, or several articles that he has written in engineering publications; 2) made errors in calculations that supposedly formed the basis for his opinions; 3) admitted that he lied about his qualifications on his resume; or 4) while answering questions, was evasive, sweated profusely, or fumbled around for answers so badly that he was incoherent. On these occasions, it is easy to believe that no jury could possibly find the expert to be a credible witness in the unlikely event that a court were to deny the forthcoming Daubert/Kumho motion.
But what happens if, after the discovery period ends and after you file that long-anticipated Daubert/Kumho motion, plaintiff's counsel responds by filing a motion to withdraw the original, discredited expert and to substitute a new one ' one with superior qualifications, and a much stronger theory of liability? In support of the motion, the plaintiff appeals to the court's discretion, and asserts simply that the expert's horrendous answers to questions at the deposition somehow justify a substitution of experts long after the discovery deadline closed. Your initial reaction would likely be outrage. You might think that the court could not possibly allow such a complete disregard of its own scheduling order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, depending on a number of factors, including the jurisdiction in which you practice, the court may well permit the substitution of experts.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Second Circuit Reinforces Bankruptcy Code Settlement Payment Safe Harbor
The Second Circuit affirmed the lower courts' judgment that a "transfer made … in connection with a securities contract … by a qualifying financial institution" was entitled "to the protection of ... §546 (e)'s safe harbor ...."