You cannot count on getting more time to do “discovery” in response to a motion for summary judgment. In Guzman-Ruis v.. Hernandez-Colon the defendant filed motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs received one extension of time to respond, but failed to respond by the extended deadline. Some two months later, plaintiffs requested another extension to conduct further discovery. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, stating that such extensions required due diligence both (a)in pursuing discovery before the summary judgment initiative surfaces and (b)in pursuing an extension of time thereafter. Read the opinion here.

To avoid this problem, start your discovery as early as reasonably possible. If the motion for summary judgment comes early, immediately serve the discovery you need and seek the depositions you need. Make sure your motion for an extension does not just ask for “more time;” be specific about what you need. And, for heaven’s sake, if you get an extension do your best to get your discovery done in the time you have been given.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling of the trial judge excluding certain experts in a medical negligence case, stating that Daubert’s role of ensuring that the courtroom door remains closed to junk science is not served by the exclusion of testimony supported by relevant experience. The Court further held the “exclusion of testimony in cases of medical experts is rarely justified as opposed to supposed experts in the area of product liability.”

Click here to read the opinion.

This is a flow sheet for plaintiff’s lawyers to use in personal injury cases, starting with the first client interview and moving all the way up to the pre-trial brief. This is mainly a big picture view to keep you from missing the forest for the trees in litigation. It reminds you to check the answer to see if the defendant has pled the comparative fault of anyone else, to ask opposing counsel for a stipulation as to reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses, and the other important steps along the way in a case. While every file has its own nuances, hopefully this will serve as a nice checklist for you on the more common occurrences in a case.

Download file

James’ vasectomy did not go as planned. His wife Corrine became pregnant. They filed suit against his urologist.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that Corrine could not file suit against the doctor because there was not a physican-patient relationship. In short, the Court ruled that Corrine did not establish that her husband’s doctor owed her a duty of care.

The dismissal of James’ claim on the ground of contributory negligence was also affirmed. (In Maryland, contributory negligence is still an absolute bar to recovery.) The basis for the claim of contributory negligence included the failure to follow doctor’s orders.

A jury verdict for several plaintiffs who alleged that they were injured by the weight-loss supplement Metabolife 356 was recently reversed by the 11th Cir. Court of Appeals.

The Court ruled that the expert testimony offered by the Plaintiff on the causation issue should not have survived at Daubert challenge. The Court said that neither expert used a reliable methadology to prove that Metabolife 356 causes strokes or heart attacks, either generally or in the plaintiffs. The 49-page opinion is a reminder of the risk of pushing the envelope on “new” products cases.

Dayontorts.com knows no bounds to bring you what’s goin’ down in tort law.

Apparently my man Eminem (is it still cool to say “my man”?)(come to think about it, is is still cool to say “cool”?) wrote a “song” called Brain Damage, and told Rolling Stone that the song lyrics that discussed his childhood experiences with the plaintiff DeAngelo Bailey were true. Plaintiff decided to sue Eminem, thankfully deciding that it was a better course than cappin’ the dude. The suit alleged false-light invasion of privacy and negligence.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a claim of false-light invasion of privacy was not made out because the song contains several clues that the lyrics should not be taken literally and, given plaintiff’s admission that he picked on Eminem and did “bully type things” to him, the “substantial truth” test was met.
The negligence claim was dismissed because the plaintiff did not properly raise that issue on appeal.

The Supreme Court Of Mississippi has affirmed a trial court’s denial of motions to dismiss claims brought against a Mississippi bishop and Diocese arising out of priest pedophilia. The Church asserted First Amendment and other claims in an effort to avoid the suit.

A discovery dispute was also resolved by the Court.

Read the opinion here. To those who don’t have time to read the 80+ page opinion (including concuring and dissenting opinions) here is a newspaper article reporting on the case.

Last year former Supreme Court Justice Penny White, former Court of Appeals Judge Joe Riley and I started “Justice Programs.” The company produces seminars for Tennessee lawyers.

Last year was a great success. We had hundreds of people from across the state attend. This year we have expanded our efforts to offer 15 CLE hours in one program, including 3 hours of ethics credit, so that Tennessee lawyers can meet their annual CLE requirement in one program.

For more information see our website

I know this is off topic – but I don’t care. Nancy Grace disgusts me. I know she lost her future husband to a murderer; that is horrible. I know she is profoundly pro-prosecution; no problem.

But she is also a lawyer. Her outrageous comments about the legal system offend me. She makes no attempt to be objective. She makes no attempt to analyze. She is not a talking head – she is a screaming skull. She is an embarrassment to the profession.

To read about the way she conducted herself as a prosecutor – a public office that represents the people – read this article. Given the way she conducts herself on TV you will not be surprised to learn how she used to conduct herself in a courtroom.

The passage of IRS Code Section 409A cast doubt on the ability of lawyers to structure attorney’s fees in personal injury cases. The IRS has issued new guidelines that make it clear that, if certain conditions are met, attorney’s fees can be deferred in contingent fee cases.

Read about the new guidelines here. To learn more talk to a qualified structured settlement broker.

Contact Information