Companies that made and sold automotive friction materials (brakes and clutches) have invoked <i>Daubert</i> (or <i>Frey</i>) in attempts to preclude plaintiffs' evidence that the asbestos, once used in such products, contributes to causing disease. <i>See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993). These defendants rely upon what they characterize as undisputed epidemiological evidence, purportedly showing that there is no significant increased risk associated with exposure to friction products. Their position is that such epidemiology is conclusive and that, without contrary epidemiology showing an increased risk, plaintiffs' causation evidence cannot pass muster under <i>Daubert</i>.

Features

Several states recently began cracking down on the online dating industry by proposing new laws that would, among other things, mandate criminal background checks on all people looking for love on the Internet.

Today, no one can ignore our society's commitment to provide the disabled as much access to public life as possible. From user-friendly parking spots to Braille-enabled touch pads to omnipresent curb cuts ' to cite just a few common examples ' the American ideal (if not always the practice) is clearly equal access.<br>In this holiday season, certainly that commitment extends to shopping. Major retailers, from Wal-Mart to Target to Toys R Us, all proclaim the accommodations available to the disabled at their stores in their print ads. Toys R Us even trumpets a special catalog for 'differently-abled kids' on its home page; after all, children enjoy presents ' and fantasizing about them ' whether or not they have a disability

The first part of this article discussed the difficulty entailed in determining the cause of fires, especially those involving appliances, and the evidentiary problems that arise regarding expert testimony. Under Daubert and now Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which codifies Daubert principles, federal courts over time provided rules that permit assessment of challenged fire expert testimony to determine whether it was fairly admissible. This second installment discusses the body of fire cases establishing rules for assessment of expert testimony that has now developed.

In <i>South Park</i>'s 147th episode, 'Make Love, Not Warcraft,' Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny dedicate weeks of their lives playing World of Warcraft, determined to defeat a rogue player who keeps killing their online characters. Just when it appears that the boys will be defeated by this online evildoer, World of Warcraft executives rush in and deliver the Sword of a Thousand Truths, a superpowerful magical weapon that allows the boys to win their battle and carry the day. <br>But, wait, was that a taxable event?

Features

When Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') in 2005, committee reports showed that several legislators believed the Act would shift from defendant to plaintiff the burden of proof with respect to the existence of federal removal jurisdiction. CAFA's legislative history contains statements from several members of Congress indicating that a plaintiff opposing removal under the Act would have the burden of establishing the absence of federal jurisdiction. For a short period following CAFA's passage, certain federal district courts found this legislative history controlling and held that CAFA shifted the burden of proof.

Part One of this article discussed the proposed new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing discovery of electronically stored information, scheduled to have taken effect on Dec. 1, 2006. The conclusion advises about sanctions, safe harbor, and production issues.

This article addresses a recent decision of a New York state appellate court concerning the admissibility of expert medical testimony to establish causation in a case involving injuries allegedly incurred from treatment with a prescription medication. In <i>Zito v. Zabarsky</i>, 28 A.D.3d 42 (2d Dep't Jan. 24, 2006), the appellate court held that expert testimony that a plaintiff's injury was caused by a prescription medication was admissible when that testimony was based on a single case report indicating a link between the medication and the injury. The court's holding is inconsistent with other New York appellate decisions addressing the admissibility of expert testimony concerning medical causation and threatens to dilute New York's standard for making that assessment, and could have the same effect in other states that apply the same standard.