Litigation Update: Supercharging Legacy Databases
February 24, 2005
Corporations and law firms who manage large ongoing and mission-critical litigation, such as toxic tort or products liability cases, are supercharging the databases they rely on to track and manage the facts and documents in those cases. They are adding full text and linguistic pattern searching capabilities to enable them to gain better command and mastery of the facts and the documents in the case. It is, after all, difficult to have command and mastery of facts or documents you can't find, or to see relationships or patterns in documents you've never before reviewed as a group. Not only are the new databases more effective, but the costs of supercharging them are often offset by savings from avoiding the ongoing costs of the legacy databases.
Recent Trends in Punitive Damages Awards
February 24, 2005
The Supreme Court's decision in <i>State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell</i>, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), addressing punitive damage awards was a culminating moment in a decade of high court jurisprudence reigning in multimillion dollar runaway awards. Following the decision, there was a flurry of activity by the Supreme Court itself, and in many lower courts, to remand, conform, and examine current cases in light of the Court's new guidance. With several exceptions where the compensatory damages are nominal or the conduct is particularly reprehensible, court after court is quoting the high court's language regarding ratios and remanding or reducing awards with double-digit ratios. The reasons vary, but include factors such as whether the plaintiff suffered physical or economic injury, the degree of the defendant's determined reprehensibility, wealth, and the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages. In general, the most successful strategies used by defendants to reduce punitive awards are: 1) under the reprehensibility guidepost, to exclude collateral evidence based on an insufficient nexus between the alleged bad conduct and the injury suffered by the plaintiff; and 2) to focus on the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages when it exceeds a single-digit ratio.
Case Notes
February 24, 2005
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Practice Tip: Last Things First ' How Starting with Jury Instructions Can Help Trial Preparations Fall into Place
February 24, 2005
We have all been there. That settlement conference that you think is going to resolve the case does just the opposite. Opposing counsel's parting words are "we'll see what a jury has to say about that." So there you are, a few weeks before trial with a to-do list that has just increased tenfold. Motions <i>in limine</i>, witness lists, exhibit lists, jury questionnaires and trial briefs all need to be prepared in the coming weeks. The facts of your case begin to play over and over again in your mind like a waking dream (or nightmare).
Digital Images: Don't Blink or You Will Miss Them
February 24, 2005
The use of digital cameras to create and preserve images has evolved from an expensive, often specialized process to a common practice embraced by the general public. As the use of digital photography has become commonplace, so too are digital photographs being increasingly offered as evidence. Courts generally have accepted digital photographs for the same purposes as traditional photographs: to support testimony and sometimes to take its place as "pictorial testimony." Digital photographs, however, are far more easily altered and manipulated than traditional film photographs, and such changes may be more difficult, if not impossible, to detect.
Online: Everything You Need to Know About Daubert
February 24, 2005
For everything you ever wanted to know about <i>Daubert</i>, visit <i>www.daubertontheweb.com.</i> The home page will direct you to a variety of links, which include: "Source" (the <i>Daubert</i> opinion); "Progeny" (Supreme Court cases interpreting <i>Daubert</i>); "Procedure" (cases resolving challenges to <i>Daubert</i>); "Fields" (decisions by fields of expertise); "Substance" (the <i>Daubert</i> worldview); "Circuits" (more than 650 appellate decisions); "States" (selected state decisions); "Tactics" (things to try); "User Forum" (to ask a question or state a view); and a Blog.
The Wrong Box: <i>U.S. v. Martignon</i> Not a Copyright Case
January 27, 2005
A prominent court, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, has rendered what may become a prominent opinion in the copyright arena, <i>U.S. v. Martignon</i>, No. 03 Cr. 1287 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2004). Unfortunately, the analysis in the decision misses the essential point that the issue was not really one of copyright.
Practice Tip: Evaluating Products Liability Risks at the Corporate Level
January 26, 2005
Conducting a due diligence review has long been standard practice for anyone considering the purchase of a company's stock or assets or a piece of real estate. In some disciplines, such as environmental law, the potential imposition of strict liability for contamination or the threat of third-party lawsuits has resulted in comprehensive environmental due diligence becoming an essential part of any pre-acquisition review. The same is the case with respect to product liability. Given the proliferation of product liability lawsuits, due diligence should no longer be thought of as a tool used exclusively in mergers and acquisitions ("M&A"). Rather, it should become an integral part of the corporate culture.
Where the Buck Stops: Court Ruling Finds CPSC Settlements 'Unreviewable'
January 26, 2005
On Sept. 30, 2004, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Kelly, J.) dismissed an attempt to challenge a settlement reached by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"). <i>Jerome Mahoney and Rebecca G. Mahoney v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,</i> U.S. D.C. (E.D. Pa.), Civil Action No. 04-1833, Sept. 30, 2004. The 2001 administrative action against Daisy Manufacturing Company ("Daisy"), the manufacturer of the Daisy air rifle, is one of its most controversial cases. In that action, announced by outgoing Chairman Ann Brown over the vigorous dissent of Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall, the CPSC charged that some 7.5 million Daisy Powerline Airguns were defective due to alleged design defects that created a "substantial product hazard" under Section 15(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act and that the guns presented a "substantial risk of injury" to children under Sections 15(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that design defects could cause BBs to become lodged in the gun's magazine, even though the gun might appear to be empty. As a consequence, the Commission stated, it is reasonably foreseeable that consumers, most of whom are children or young adults, are likely to be less careful when handling the gun, and that BBs are "likely to be fired at and strike the consumer or another person in the vicinity."
Case Notes
January 26, 2005
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
