How Mohawk Will Affect Litigation

//How Mohawk Will Affect Litigation

How Mohawk Will Affect Litigation

Law360, New York (February 04, 2010) — Here are two sentences lawyers would be happy never to read in an order directed to their clients: “The attorney-client privilege has been vitiated. Produce previously protected communications.”

Harsh consequences can radiate out from such words like ripples in a pond: litigation strategy may be revealed; embarrassing, damaging — and often irrelevant — discussions will be viewed and probably used by the opposing party; and lawyers will become deponents.

The initial reaction of any lawyer and client is likely, “Can we appeal and stay the order of production?” For a number of years, the answer to this question was, “It depends on the circuit.” Now, the answer is more simply “No.”

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Mohawk Industries Inc. v. Carpenter, resolved a circuit split by holding it to the end of the process in making more formal way with the help of the correlated path for more information click here that orders ruling against claims of attorney-client privilege are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.

Read the entire article.

By | 2018-10-24T03:50:36+00:00 January 3rd, 2018|Uncategorized|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment

Client Results

Represented a manufacturer in proceedings before the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); after eight months of submissions, NHTSA determined there was no evidence of defect and denied a recall petition.

National trial counsel for a large U.S. manufacturer of household fixtures; have represented the company in numerous wrongful death and brain injury suits.

Won a product liability jury trial in state court for the largest U.S. automobile manufacturer; plaintiff was seeking punitive damages.

Overturned on appeal, before a state supreme court, a jury verdict of $150,000,000.

In a mass tort representation for a healthcare client, obtained “no pay” dismissals by motion and by negotiation of all thirteen cases pending in western Pennsylvania.

Won a multi-week jury trial in federal court for the largest petrochemical company in the world.

Represented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in two birth defect cases in Philadelphia: in one, the court directed a verdict for our client; in the other, the jury’s verdict was less than the plaintiff’s actual medical costs.

Won an appeal, before a state supreme court, of a jury verdict of 130 million dollars.

Tried a two month-long case for a medical device manufacturer which resulted in a defense verdict as to plaintiff’s claims.

Tried a multi-week wrongful death case and received from plaintiffs’ counsel — the day before closings were to begin — a stipulation of dismissal.