For many consumers, understanding the composition of food products is key to making informed decisions about healthy eating. As ultra-processed foods (“UPFs) occupy a growing share of grocery stores and American diets, UPFs have drawn increasing scrutiny by litigators, regulators, and lawmakers.
Litigation
Mastering Deposition Designations in California: Best Practices for Trial Success
By Christina Maria Assi on
Some of the most critical evidence at trial comes in the form of deposition testimony from witnesses who are unable to testify live at trial. Done right, deposition designations can powerfully support your case. Done poorly, they can confuse the jury or worse yet, be excluded. Below are six best practices for California practitioners to ensure your designations are both effective and admissible.
The Journey vs. The Destination: Analyzing Jury Deliberation Styles
By Jessica Griffith on
The role of juries in adjudicating cases has long been the subject of consternation and debate by those in the legal system. In civil jury trials, the jury acts as the fact-finder and must determine the proper level of liability (and where applicable, damages) to assign the defendant. Much psychological research has focused on how to craft trial procedures to assist juries with this complex task. For example, providing juries with both preliminary and final jury instructions has been found to improve decision-making processes and trial outcomes by giving jurors a cognitive framework to assess the evidence presented at trial. Other studies have observed that simplifying jury instructions, as well as allowing jurors to take notes and ask questions, can improve both juror comprehension and satisfaction. But how do jurors come to a verdict once they are sent to deliberate?
Be Smarter Than a Lizard: Overcoming Reptile Theory in the Discovery Phase
By Chelsea Samuels on
It’s no secret: plaintiffs’ attorneys want to win big. Using reptile theory, plaintiffs (and their counsel) are enjoying gargantuan jury verdicts. Through thoughtful and strategic lawyering, however, the harsh effects of reptile theory can be avoided.
Legal Separateness: The Boundaries on Written Discovery
By Joan Kim on
The concept of corporate legal separateness has long been a fortress protecting affiliated business entities such as parents, subsidiaries, and sister companies from various kinds of liability and litigation. However, how much protection does such legal separateness offer the information that corporations gather and store when faced with vehicles of written discovery such as interrogatory requests or requests for production? In other words, if an opposing party requests information or documents from a party that requires that party to seek information or documents from an affiliated non-party entity, is the party then required to seek the requested information or documents from its affiliated non-party entities?
Court Orders Significant Sanctions Against Plaintiff for Wiping Company Laptop but Stops Short of Dismissing Complaint
By Brooke Gottlieb on
A recent order from a federal magistrate judge provides helpful insight to parties concerning the destruction of evidence and the proof required to obtain the ultimate sanction of dismissal of a case as a result of such destruction.
In McLaughlin v. Lenovo Global Tech. (United States) Inc., Magistrate Judge Gail Dein of the District of Massachusetts issued numerous sanctions against plaintiff but decided that dismissal of plaintiff’s case was too harsh a punishment after he wiped his company-issued laptop prior to returning it to defendant.
Factors in Fee-Shifting for Prevailing Defendants
By Briana Seyarto Flores on
Statutes permitting discretionary attorney fee-shifting for prevailing defendants vary in the circumstances under which fee-shifting is permitted. Two recent cases tackling the question of why and when a lawsuit warrants shifting attorneys’ fees from a prevailing defendant to the plaintiff who brought the claim reflect some of these differences. One case focused on “frivolousness” of the lawsuit, and the other imposed a “bad faith” requirement—despite the absence of such language from the relevant statute. The perceived motivation of the respective plaintiffs and purpose behind the statutes under which the claims were brought were influential.
Negotiating with a Noob M&A Target? Go Easy on Them, says Delaware Chancery
By Adam Farbiarz on
Buy-side executives in an M&A deal negotiate with their sell-side counterparts for months, plying them for information, assessing the seller’s weaknesses and pressure points, and even making informal entreaties when the parties’ standstill agreement says they shouldn’t —all to get the best deal for the acquirer. Under Delaware’s contractarian corporate regime—that would seem to be a good thing.