Cameo Clips
June 29, 2006
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Case Notes
June 28, 2006
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Fosamax and the Public Hazards Discovery Doctrine
June 28, 2006
An observation can be made about the typical method through which mass pharmaceutical litigation begins. Initially, the plaintiff files a lawsuit and serves the manufacturer with written discovery requests, seeking information pertaining to adverse events, clinical trials, direct-to-consumer marketing, and the like. The manufacturer objects to each and every request and does not provide one document. The manufacturer then delays, and the plaintiff frets and finally a compromise is worked out whereby limited production will be obtained; attached to that production will be a manufacturer-imposed presumption of confidentiality. At the same time, while the manufacturer strives to keep secret the internal documents showing what it knew and when it knew it, it will issue a press release talking about the wonderful medicine, claiming it is being wrongfully sued and saying that it has never had a reason to think the medicine was unsafe.
Two Recent Decisions Advance Post-Buckley Trend Rejecting Medical Monitoring
June 28, 2006
In January 2006, a federal court in Texas and a state court in New Jersey issued significant decisions contributing to the developing trend, which was triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in <i>Metro-North Commuter Railroad v. Buckley</i>, 521 U.S. 424 (1997), rejecting medical monitoring as a cause of action. In <i>Bund zur Untersttzung Radargesch'digter e. V., et al., v. Raytheon, Co.</i>, No. EP-04-CA-127-PRM, 2006 WL 267335 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2006), U.S. District Judge Philip R. Martinez predicted that the Texas Supreme Court would not recognize a cause of action for medical monitoring based primarily on that court's prior decision declining to recognize a claim for mental anguish in the absence of a physical injury. One week later, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, in <i>Vitanza v. Wyeth, Inc.</i>, Case No. ATL-2093-04-MT (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Jan. 24, 2006), dismissed a medical monitoring claim involving the prescription medication Prempro, ruling that the cause of action for medical monitoring previously recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court is not available for plaintiffs asserting product liability or consumer fraud claims.
Practice Tip: Will the Real Drug Manufacturer Please Stand Up?
June 28, 2006
You are defending a manufacturer in a pharmaceutical product liability action. The plaintiff has testified that she obtained a prescription from her doctor for your client's medication and filled it at a reputable, national chain pharmacy. The doctor's records confirm that the prescription was written and the pharmacy records confirm that it was filled with your client's product. Normally, that scenario would dispel any doubts concerning the adequacy of product identification and you would identify other fronts on which to defend.
The Class Action Fairness Act: The Meaning of 'Commenced' After 1 Year
June 28, 2006
The Class Action Fairness Act ('CAFA') was enacted almost a year and a half ago, signed into law by President Bush on Feb. 18, 2005. 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). CAFA was enacted to help control the 'explosion' in the number of class actions while still allowing the right of access to the courts. As stated by one of the act's proponents, Sen. Orin Hatch, during his keynote address to the American Bar Association conference on class actions, 'truly national class actions should not be heard in remote state courts with little tie to any of the parties involved.' CAFA attempts to rectify this situation by allowing national class actions to be heard in federal courts.
Taking a Stand on Standards Initiatives
June 28, 2006
Industry analysts often debate implementation details of various standards, but more critical attention should be focused on whether entire standardization programs are well conceived. This article offers some lines of thought that readers may find useful in deciding their overall response to a standardization proposal.
Confidential Client Communications? Maybe Not
June 28, 2006
Former SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson noted in a March 5, 2004 speech that SOX was needed to deal with 'a general erosion of standards of integrity and ethics in the corporate and financial world ... The acquiescence by the gatekeepers, like accountants, who turned their backs or actually condoned such accounting manipulation, combined with stock option incentives to management, fueled the short-term focus.' Ironically, the SEC and the Department of Justice, which enforce SOX's criminal provisions, appear ready to burden the traditional ethical obligations of corporate legal counselors to keep client communications confidential in an effort to police the integrity and ethics of other corporate gatekeepers.
Going High-Tech On the Paper Trail
June 28, 2006
It makes sense that attorneys who advise e-commerce ventures as part of their regular practice would try putting technology to use to manage law firms. And it makes sense that they'd be the ones to succeed.<br>As technology continues to permeate our society, use of radio frequency identification (RFID) equipment is spreading far beyond tracking 18-wheelers cross-country, or products and parts moving in and out of warehouses ' or, for that matter, stray cattle, pets or misplaced car keys.
