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.

Served as national counsel for a client sued in more than 300 cases, many alleging wrongful death, following the company’s recall of more than a dozen of its products. Resolved the entire docket of cases in less than two years through “no pay” dismissals, motions practice, and the remainder were resolved at values acceptable to the client.

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 motion to defeat creation of a multi-district litigation (MDL) case; argued before the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML).

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

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

Served as national coordinating counsel for two Fortune 100 companies jointly defending more than 55,000 asbestos claims; also served those clients both as national motions counsel and as trial counsel.

Obtained a directed verdict during trial from a federal district court on a Daubert motion; appellants dismissed their case after oral argument in the Eleventh Circuit.

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

Regulatory counsel for clients involved in proceedings before the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) concerning safety standards, ongoing and completed recalls, and accident investigations.