Brought to you free by The TASA Group Inc.
Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, As multi-district litigation has proliferated and as Congress has tried to funnel class actions into federal courts (and as plaintiffs' lawyers have resisted this trend by strategically crafting multi-plaintiff litigations that will remain in state court), individual judges have begun to impose significant limitations on the ability of defendants to take pretrial discovery, including depositions of plaintiffs. Surprisingly, defendant have few concrete legal guide posts with which to challenge such restrictions.
Dickstein Shapiro's Deborah E. Greenspan and Fredric Brooks write: Companies faced with substantial numbers of asbestos personal injury claims have turned increasingly to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to eliminate the risk of uncertain potential future liability. Section 524(g) can provide protection not only to debtors but also to certain third-party entities that could have exposure based on products or actions of the debtor. The precise contours of this third-party injunction remain the subject of litigation.
David A. Shimkin and Paul J. Zola of Cozen O'Connor discuss the assumption of risk doctrine and its application to sports injuries and a recent products liability trend against bat manufacturers.
Anthony Viola, Andre Cizmarik and Megan Freismuth of Edwards Wildman Palmer explore the procedural history of a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in the Eastern District against, among others, the County of Suffolk and its Police Department, and the hidden dangers giving rise to its dismissal after the process server mistakenly served a state entity and the plaintiffs did not react to the county's failure to appear.