Catching Up: Fact Gathering Defense Tactics in Product Liability Actions

2018-11-08T16:37:26+00:00 November 8th, 2018|Categories: Julie Muller, Thomas E. Peisch|Tags: |

The process of fact-gathering is a crucially-important part of any defense effort in a product liability action. Unfortunately, in most situations, the plaintiff starts the contest far ahead, since she (and her counsel) usually have first knowledge of the incident and the earliest opportunity to obtain the relevant documents and

Permitted Practice or Not? That is the Chapter 93A, Section 3 Question – Tips for the Practitioner

2018-09-21T19:46:28+00:00 September 5th, 2018|Categories: Katherine Kelter, Thomas E. Peisch|

A common defense to claims of unfair or deceptive conduct brought under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 93A, is that the actions about which the plaintiff complains actually are exempt from liability as “permitted practices.” A recent Massachusetts product labeling case involving adult beverages reveals a few tips for

Recent Massachusetts Decision Establishes Privilege Applicable to Post-Incident Analyses

2018-07-26T21:22:49+00:00 July 26th, 2018|Categories: Daniel Fishman, Johanna L. Matloff, Thomas E. Peisch|

Most products liability defense lawyers are thoroughly familiar with evidentiary protections offered to post-incident repairs or improvements. Likewise, counsel are well-versed in the elements of the attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity and the discovery and evidentiary limits those doctrines impose on their adversaries. Less well-known is the so-called “self-critical analysis” privilege,

Fraudulent Joinder and Misjoinder – Practice Points for Defendants

2018-03-21T22:13:39+00:00 March 9th, 2018|Categories: Daniel Fishman, Erin K. Higgins, Thomas E. Peisch|

It is no secret that manufacturers and sellers of products prefer to litigate product liability claims in the federal courts rather than in their state counterparts. The reasons for this preference include a perceived higher-quality of judges, more intense scrutiny of “junk science,” more conservative jurors, and a more predictable