LJN Newsletters

In August 2006, the University of Michigan's School of Public Health released the initial report in its ongoing study of dioxin exposure in central Michigan. Measuring People's Exposure to Dioxin Contamination Along the Tittabawassee River and Surrounding Areas (August, 2006) ('Report') (www.umdioxin.org). The University study was prompted by concerns among the population of Midland and Saginaw Counties that dioxin-like compounds from Dow Chemical Company facilities in Midland had contaminated parts of the city of Midland and sediments in the Tittabawassee River (Report, p. 5). The study was not designed to evaluate health effects, but rather to determine whether there was a relationship between levels of dioxin in residential soils and household dust and levels of dioxin in people's blood. Id. It also evaluated other factors that could influence blood dioxin levels such as age, diet, hobbies, and employment. Id.

The glass ceiling is alive and well in America's 200 largest law firms. According to a survey released last October by the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL), women make up a paltry 16% of equity partners, 16% of governance committee members and 5% of managing partners in these firms. NAWL says the firms should double the number of women equity partners and corporations should reach the same target with chief legal officers by 2015. Even so, the percentage of women in equity and leadership roles in the legal profession would still fail to reflect that women now represent about 50% of all law school graduates.
Do women attorneys have a particular need for communication skills development? Yes.

As law firms have continued to grow and the practice of law has become even more of a business, firms are now giving serious attention to how to manage the firm. As they cope with this issue, firms raise many questions. Here are some of the ones they most frequently ask us as consultants ' and our answers.

Since the Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') set forth its pre-emption analysis in the preamble to its Jan. 24, 2006 drug-labeling rule, there has been a flood of judicial opinions analyzing the scope and applicability of the pre-emption defense in prescription drug litigation. The cases have been sharply divided, and the defense now appears likely to be a key issue that will be addressed in all cases going forward. In this continuing coverage, I summarize the pre-emption opinions that have been handed down since my last article in the November 2006 issue of this newsletter. For an analysis of the legal arguments in support of pre-emption and the FDA preamble, see Eric G. Lasker, Prescription Drug Litigation Pre-emption Following the FDA Preamble, LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy, Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2006).

The first part of this article discussed the Delaware court's decision in In re Asbestos Litigation, the role of epidemiology in proving causation, and the interpretation of the Daubert decision by several courts. The conclusion examines the role of courts as gatekeepers.

Company X is evaluating whether it should purchase the assets of Company Y, which manufactures lawnmowers. Company X has been looking to break into the lawnmower market and sees the purchase of Company Y's assets as an excellent opportunity to do so. Company X is considering two courses of action if it purchases Company Y's assets: 1) continue the manufacture of Company Y's lawnmower product line, using Company Y's designs, specifications, diagrams, blueprints, personnel, and manufacturing facilities; or 2) cease the manufacturing of the product line, but continue Company Y's ancillary business of repairing and servicing the lawnmowers it sold to its customers. Company X comes to you with a seemingly straightforward question: Under these two scenarios, will it be held liable for product liability claims arising from Company Y's manufacture and sale of defective lawnmowers, even if, as part of the asset purchase, it expressly declines to assume Company Y's liabilities? Unfortunately, based on the current state of the law, you will not be able to provide Company X with an easy, clear-cut answer.

Two appellate courts recently ruled that an individual who intentionally visited Web sites to view child pornography, but who did not intentionally save those images to his computer's hard drive, could not be convicted or punished for possessing images that were automatically saved due to the Web browser's cache functions. These rulings strike me as badly mistaken, for reasons that I shall explain further below.

In 1998, Congress passed the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), broadly expanding the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) enforcement powers in the Internet arena. Since then, states and the FTC have become more active in regulating the collection, use and security of consumer's personal information generally. However, the protection of children's personal information remains a top FTC enforcement goal, and the commission has become more aggressive in enforcement of COPPA each year. Companies that fail to proactively act to ensure COPPA compliance do so at the risk of seven-figure penalties.
This article provides Web site operators with suggestions on how to comply with the spirit of COPPA when legal obligations are not crystal clear, as in the case when the operator of the Web site in question believes that it can make a good faith effort to be a 'general audience' Web site, but has reason to believe that the site may attract visitors under the age of 13 and is unsure how the FTC will view and treat the site.