Under Rule 30(d)(4), ‛A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(4) [i.e., for a protective order]." Sometimes, questions are beyond the pale, and this limitation is extremely confining. Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462 ...

Hurricane Katrina generated the class action filed in Preston v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Med. Ctr. , 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9451 (5th Cir. April 25, 2007), which sought damages for injuries and deaths allegedly caused by defects and unreasonably dangerous conditions at the medical facilities of certain defendants, and their failure to have an adequate e ...

The plaintiff in Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006), took a 30(b)(6) deposition of the corporate representative of one of the two defendants. The plaintiff was prepared to read selected testimony into the record if the witness did not appear at trial, but he did. The District Court, however, precluded the plaintiff from taking l ...

The decision in Al-Haddad Commodities Corp. v. Toepfer Int’l Asia Pte., Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29405 (E.D. Va. April 19, 2007), confirmed the international arbitration award before it, but it is most interesting for its statement of the standards for review of an award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The threshold point for the Court was the relationsh ...

Unlike Rule 11, which expressly authorizes sanctions against an offending attorney, client or both, § 1927 does not apply to parties but only to "[a]ny attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States...." Only lawyers may, therefore, be sanctioned under the statute. If a pro se litigant is a lawyer, the statute applies. < ...

Bills sent from lawyer to client are privileged only to the extent that they reflect the specific nature of legal services rendered. Otherwise, a bill for legal services is not privileged. See the recent decision in Sobba v. Elmen, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29172 (E.D. Ark. April 19, 2007), quoting Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 403 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Typically, ...

The plaintiff in LifeNet, Inc. v. Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29058 (E.D. Va. April 10, 2007), accused the defendant of willful patent infringement. In its defense, defendant MTF intended to rely on the opinion that was rendered in 2002 by a Pennie & Edmonds’ partner named Stimpson who concluded that defendant MTF’s process did ...

The plaintiff insured in Weiss v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7613 (3d Cir. April 3, 2007), filed a state law claim for wrongful denial of coverage in New Jersey state court. The insurer removed on ERISA preemption grounds, and the plaintiff added a RICO claim. The state common law claims were dismissed as pre-empted by ERISA, and the RICO cl ...

The fact that a judge enters sanctions against a litigant or its counsel does not mandate recusal of the judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, even if the judge also refers counsel's conduct to the appropriate disciplinary authorities, under the decision in Conklin v. Warrington Township, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10478 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2007). The issue for recusal is ...

In United States v. Metuchen-Gamba, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8291 (9th Cir. April 11, 2007), a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that a district court judge may lawfully appoint a magistrate judge to preside over closing argument at a felony criminal trial if the defendant's counsel has, for trial tactic or legal strategy purposes, agreed to such appointment. ...