LCJ 2020 livestream SERIES
Welcome to LCJ's livestream page where we will include details for all upcoming, as well as past virtual events hosted by LCJ and LCJ affiliates. Here, you can find registration information, details and background of featured speakers and what topics are to be discussed in our webinars.
SEPTEMBER 2020
EXPERT EVIDENCE REFORM - WILL IT HAPPEN?
Federal courts across the country misunderstand the “gatekeeping” responsibility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for screening the reliability of expert opinion testimony. Far too often, courts in every federal circuit have allowed juries to hear opinion testimony without properly analyzing the factual basis of those opinions or the reliability of the expert’s methodology and determining whether it should be admitted at all.
These decisions can significantly influence the outcome of an entire MDL.
Now the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules is considering whether to remedy this problem by amending FRE 702 to clarify that 702’s admissibility standards require the application of FRE 104(a)’s preponderance test.
Is such an amendment likely? If so, how would it affect the way you handle expert admissibility issues?
Join Lawyers for Civil Justice for a lively discussion including timely updates and practical analysis from leading Rule 702 experts, including:
EVENT DETAILS
This LCJ event, open to all members and allies, will be webcast Wednesday, September 9th at 1 p.m. EDT. We look forward to your joining us!
Federal courts across the country misunderstand the “gatekeeping” responsibility required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 for screening the reliability of expert opinion testimony. Far too often, courts in every federal circuit have allowed juries to hear opinion testimony without properly analyzing the factual basis of those opinions or the reliability of the expert’s methodology and determining whether it should be admitted at all.
These decisions can significantly influence the outcome of an entire MDL.
Now the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules is considering whether to remedy this problem by amending FRE 702 to clarify that 702’s admissibility standards require the application of FRE 104(a)’s preponderance test.
Is such an amendment likely? If so, how would it affect the way you handle expert admissibility issues?
Join Lawyers for Civil Justice for a lively discussion including timely updates and practical analysis from leading Rule 702 experts, including:
- Abigail "Abby" Dodd, Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX
- Lee Mickus, Evans Fears & Shuttert LLP, Denver, CO
- Thomas Sheehan, Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo, NY
EVENT DETAILS
This LCJ event, open to all members and allies, will be webcast Wednesday, September 9th at 1 p.m. EDT. We look forward to your joining us!
FEATURED SPEAKERS:
ABIGAIL "ABBY" DODD:
Abby Dodd is Senior Legal Counsel in Shell Oil Company’s Houston office. After graduating from Texas A&M University and South Texas College of Law, she worked for various eDiscovery vendors, specializing in project management, consulting, early case assessment, and education for all phases of the EDRM. Abby joined Shell Oil Company in 2012 as part of their eDiscovery group. She currently practices in the Global Litigation Strategy & Coordination Group, where the focus is on training throughout Shell’s Litigation department, overseeing special projects, developing educational sessions for other departments, and civil justice initiatives. |
LEE MICKUS:
Lee Mickus is a partner in the Denver office of Evans Fears & Schuttert LLP. He defends manufacturers and other business interests nationally in product liability and tort lawsuits. He has successfully tried cases to juries in Colorado, Texas, California, New York, Florida, Montana, Puerto Rico and several other states. Lee has worked with a wide range of products and industries, including automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and recreational equipment. Lee draws upon his courtroom experience to develop reforms to end abusive practices and bring common sense to the litigation process. He has presented to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and testified before several state legislatures on bills affecting a wide range of civil justice issues. He also has submitted numerous amicus briefs on behalf of business interests and civil justice groups in cases that threaten to expand liability unreasonably. |
THOMAS SHEEHAN:
Thomas J. Sheehan is Phillips Lytle's Science Team Practice Group Leader. His practice for the past 20 years has focused exclusively on high-stakes product liability and health effects litigation, with a primary emphasis on the defense of pharmaceuticals and biologic products. With decades of experience and scientific training, Mr. Sheehan is relied upon for the development of sound strategies and implementation of effective tactics to achieve favorable results. He routinely coordinates the scientific defense for clients facing mass tort litigation and also advises companies on risk management strategies to avoid litigation. Mr. Sheehan identifies and works with experts at the top of their fields to develop a broad and deep understanding of the science as it relates to questions of causation and company decisions. He often is tasked with taking key depositions of expert witnesses, and develops admissions critical to assessing and challenging the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony. Mr. Sheehan also serves on leadership teams to coordinate the scientific defense in multiple-defendant mass tort litigation, ensuring a consistent, cohesive and strategic scientific position. Mr. Sheehan has represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in the defense of cases involving numerous, varied therapies, including phenylpropanolamine, antidepressant medications, antidiabetic medications, vaccines, hormone replacement therapies, antiemetic therapies and ulcer treatments. The scientific strategies developed and implemented involve diverse scientific areas and alleged injuries, including autism, birth defects, cardiovascular disease and cancer, among others. He brings a depth of experience to the scientific defense of pharmaceutical litigation appreciated by in-house counsel, company scientists and expert witnesses. |
REQUIRED READING:
Please find links and resources ahead of the Livestream below.
Please find links and resources ahead of the Livestream below.
- “Amending Federal Rule of Evidence 702 – A Review of Gatekeeping Practices in Multidistrict Litigation,” by Thomas Sheehan, Eva Canaan and Joshua Glasgow, June 2020
- “Gatekeeping Reorientation: Amend Rule 702 to Correct Judicial Misunderstanding About Expert Evidence,” by Lee Mickus, Washington Legal Foundation, May 2020
- Defending Daubert: It’s Time to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” by David Bernstein and Eric Lasker, William & Mary Law Review, 2015
- “Toward a More Apparent Approach to Considering the Admission of Expert Testimony,” by Judge Thomas Schroeder, Notre Dame Law Review, June 2020 “In Support of Amending Rule 702 and Its Comments to Achieve More Robust and Consistent Gatekeeping,” by the International Association of Defense Counsel, July 2020
- “Comment on Potential Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” by the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, June 2020
- “Re: Amending Federal Rule of Evidence 702,” by David Bernstein and Eric Lasker, August 2020