Consumer-Generated Content Is Hot
Over the past year, a growing number of companies have begun to sponsor promotions involving consumer-generated content. For example, Frito-Lay and Unilever each ran contests in which consumers were invited to create commercials and the winning spots were aired on television. These types of promotions offer many advantages for marketers. If a promotion is executed well, it could generate publicity for a relatively small investment. Consumers are also likely to spend more time on a company's Web site watching videos and learning about the company's products than they would otherwise. Moreover, a company may end up with a great commercial at a fraction of the price they would have had to pay an agency to develop it.
Lawyer Ads in Cyberspace
New York State's new ethical rules governing attorney advertising, which went into effect on Feb. 1, 2007, specifically address the use of Internet and electronic technology to advertise attorney services and serve as an example of how other states may revise their attorney advertising rules as well.
Cyber-insurance: An Added Layer of Security
Confidential client records and work product are the core of any law firm's work product. Most firms understand the necessity of archiving computer and paper files in a safe, off-site location. But what about the active files on a computer? If they are compromised by a hacker, or otherwise threatened by criminal activity, how would it affect a firm's operation?
Movers & Shakers
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
Case Notes
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Plaintiffs' Lawyers Find New Clients in Pharmaceutical Cases
For years, Hersh & Hersh ('H&H') has represented hundreds of users of a top-selling anti-psychotic drug in suits against its maker. Now the firm is taking on bigger clients against the same company: states that say they've been footing the public health costs from the drug. H&H's first such client against pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co. is the state of New Mexico, which claims it spent about $18 million on Zyprexa'-related medical expenses between 1999 and 2005.
Recent Case Law Developments: Product Defect Claimed in Atkins Case; Burden of Removal under CAFA
This article discusses two interesting developments in recently published decisions. The <i>Gorran</i> case involves litigation over allegedly harmful consequences of following the well-known 'Atkins' Diet.' As will be seen, an attempt to structure the claim within product liability doctrine posed a big challenge. The <i>Blockbuster</i> decision answers a key question in light of new federal legislation, popularly called 'CAFA' (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005), which was intended to enhance removal of certain class actions from state to federal courts. The question is, who has the burden of proving CAFA's jurisdictional requirements: the defendant trying to stay in federal court or the plaintiff trying to send the case back to state court?
The Expansion of Product Liability Theory
Depending on the source cited, California's expanding economy ranks in size, worldwide, anywhere between six and 10, if California were a country in and of itself. <i>(www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/economyofCalifornia#endnote_worldranking)</i> California's position as a stand-alone economy may be matched as a stand-alone jurisdiction if recent appellate and trial court decisions permitting the expansion of the product liability theory to claims of environmental damage are upheld.
Practice Tip: The Dilemma of Backup Tapes in Mass Tort Litigation
Parties involved in litigation have an obligation to preserve relevant information in existence at the time the duty to preserve attaches and must preserve relevant information created thereafter. <i>Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC</i>, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (<i>Zubulake IV</i>). Developing a comprehensive preservation plan to meet these obligations is both critical and difficult. The analysis of whether particular data need to be preserved involves murky, and often contradictory, legal standards.
CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ('CAFA') expanded federal jurisdiction over putative class actions. Under CAFA, the federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. '1332, was amended to allow for both original and removal jurisdiction over putative class actions where: 1) the putative class action consists of at least 100 proposed class members; 2) the citizenship of at least one proposed class member is different from that of any defendant ('minimal diversity'); and 3) the matter in controversy, after aggregating the claims of the proposed class members, exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. <i>See generally</i> P.L. 109-2 '4(a), codified at 28 U.S.C. '1332(d). This expanded federal diversity jurisdiction is subject to certain exceptions, including the 'local controversy' and 'home-state controversy' exceptions, where, <i>inter alia</i>, a certain percentage of putative class members and the 'primary defendants,' or defendants from whom 'significant relief is sought,' are citizens of the forum state. <i>See</i> 28 U.S.C. '1332(d)(3) and (4).
