Last year, the Supreme Court sent a resounding message regarding personal jurisdiction when it decided Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746, 752 (2014). Bauman announced a significantly more stringent standard for finding a corporation to be “essentially at home” in a foreign jurisdiction and, as a result, made personal jurisdiction harder to establish in … Continue Reading
Over on the Drug & Device Law blog, Reed Smith partner Jim Beck (aka “Bexis”) makes a case for adding an explicit ascertainability requirement to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (Rule 23), presently under examination by the federal Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for possible amendment. Bexis points out that many courts already (properly) impose … Continue Reading
Reed Smith attorneys Jim Beck and Michelle Cheng explain in a recent Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder that the Supreme Court's decisions in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (2011) and Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) have narrowed the permitted scope of "general" personal jurisdiction against corporations. As a result, corporate defendants might want to think twice before making a general appearance in new cases filed in states other than the states in which they have incorporated or have located their principal place of business.… Continue Reading
Recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 26 make it easier to communicate with expert witnesses and to prepare them for deposition and trial testimony while still protecting attorney work product. While expert discovery has been a part of federal practice since 1993, the period dedicated to the discovery of attorney-expert communications and draft expert reports has become increasingly time consuming during pre-trial preparation. The amendments to Rule 26 address this development and attempt to create an atmosphere that encourages better communication between attorneys and their experts.… Continue Reading
