Search

The article discusses the case of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Junhong v. Boeing Co. where lawsuits filed against Boeing involving a plane crash into seawall separating Pacific Ocean and runway of airport. It states that according to the Illinois district court, Boeing did not act as a federal officer and jurisdiction was not available because the crash was on land not over water. It mentions that self-certification does not constitute under federal agency.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Mohamed et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. where the plaintiffs filed suit against Uber, alleging putative class claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. It presents the views of Brian Koji, cochair of the ABA Section of Litigation's Employment & Labor Relations Committee, on assault against the enforceability of arbitration agreements. It mentions that businesses that have operations throughout the country will have to confront it.

The article discusses ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc. that the lawyers in a copyright suit may not research the public social media posts of their prospective jurors unless they fully disclose the extent of that research to each juror involved. It include comments from Marcus R. Chatterton of American Bar Association, online juror research by lawyers. It adds alternates for counsels to mitigate risks.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court ruled that defendant Biomet's e-discovery process was reasonable although a different search method might have discovered more relevant documents. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana examined Biomet's use of keyword searches and predictive coding. It highlights the plaintiff's objection to Biomet's search process which was found reasonable by the court. The court's ruling emphasized the proportionality standard.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne regarding a court case of Sunbeam Products Inc. It informs that the judge disqualified Homeland Housewares LLC from representing Sunbeam Product as a plaintiff in a patent dispute because a lateral associate's conflict of interest was imputed to the entire firm. It further tells that Sunbeam Product had sued Homeland Housewares and others for patent infringement.

The article discusses a trademark infringement case between Gucci America Inc. and Guess? Inc. In this case, a federal magistrate judge from the U.S. District Court for New York ruled that Gucci could not claim attorney-client privilege with regard to the e-mail communications with its in-house counsel because he was not authorized to practice law at the time the communications were made.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., where the court rejected more than half of the requested attorney fees. It mentions that the court is focused on redacted billing entries, writing press releases time spent for inquiries from television outlets, and clerical tasks of attorneys. It states that the court explained that the fee request should exclude time which are documented inadequately or not reasonably expended during the litigation.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court Simoneaux et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. which highlights the significant difference in threshold requirements for a new trial under different rules. It mentions that whistleblowers filed the case for violations of the False Claims Act, alleging the defendant withheld evidence of chemical leaks. It states that the Jury returned a defense verdict as the plaintiffs had not submitted evidence of the quantity of the alleged leaks.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit District Court case Meathe v. Ret, which deals with the alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Topics include the need to practice discretion to impose sanctions, the district court's skepticism of the case, and the interpretation on the vexatious conduct.

The article discusses the U.S. based court case American General Life Insurance Co. v. Billard involving Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). It mentions that defendant took the deposition of a person designated to testify by American General in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice, which identified 16 different subjects for testimony. It informs that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa has rejected the concept of reasonable particularity raised by American General.

The article presents a court case Terraphase Engineering, Inc. v. Arcadis NV over the use of inadvertently disclosed privileged information. It mentions that case is heard in U.S. District Court in California, which granted accuser's motion for a temporary protective order due to opposing counsel's interception and use of privileged emails. It informs that the court ordered Arcadis to dismiss its counterclaim to re-file by new counsel without reference to any disclosed privileged information.

The article discusses a court case related to the drug Trasylol, in which the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida has entered an order excluding the opinions of a regulatory expert, characterizing the witness as an "advocate." The plaintiffs alleged that Trasylol, which is used to control bleeding during heart surgery, has caused several injuries. The plaintiffs identified a regulatory expert to testify the U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulations applicable to Trasylol.

The article discusses a court case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, near Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA ), in which a federal magistrate judge ordered the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Tennessee Valley Authority to appear for deposition in a litigation associated with the failure of a power plant's ash waste dike. The magistrate judge ruled that the CEO's public statements about the settlement were part of his job.

The article reports that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has ordered a full, evidentiary Daubert hearing as part of deciding whether to certify a class in a pending action in the Rhodes v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. case. It states that the ruling follows a number of decisions in federal circuits to allow an analysis of a motion for class certification. The court issued a Daubert hearing to test the plaintiffs' key experts' methodology and assumptions.