-
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
State of the Art: Avoiding Punitive Damages and Winning the Battle of the ExpertsAlan J. LazarusWilliam A. HanssenFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Jeff KabanAUTODESK, INC.
-
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
How to Win the Battle of the Experts
Alan J. LazarusWilliam A. HanssenFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Jeff KabanAUTODESK, INC.
-
How to Win the Battle of the Experts
Winning Strategies
Admissibility Strategies
Limiting Doctrines and Principles
Trial Examination Strategies
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsWinning Strategies
Spend the Necessary Time and Money, But Avoid Overkill• Field the Better Team of Experts• Quality, Not Quantity• Be Analytical, Not Reflexive• Don’t Skimp – The Great Equalizer
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsWinning Strategies
Have the more specifically “expert” expert• Generalist vs. Specialist• Avoid, and Exploit, Jack-of-All-Trades Syndrome
Allow Your Expert to Flex Their Expertise• Withholding Authorization to Perform Tests, Analyses or Evidence
Reviews is a Calculated Risk• Give Your Expert the Full Picture
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsWinning Strategies
Win the Battle on Foundational Admissibility• Exclude or Limit the Opponent’s Expert and Assure the Admissibility of
Your Owno Be Surgicalo Be Pragmatico Be Credibleo Be Careful
• 402 Hearings
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsAdmissibility
AdmissibilityBackground
• California Expert Admissibility pre-Daubert - Kelly-Frye
• Daubert Sea Change (1993) – The Advent of Rigorous Gatekeeping
• California’s Response to Daubert - People v. Leahy (1994)Endorsement of “Daubert-Style Gatekeeping”
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsAdmissibility
The Interregnum (1994-2012)
Two Camps on Gatekeeping• Roberti v. Andy’s Termite (2003)• People v. Mitchell (2003)/Lockheed Litigation Cases I (2004)
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsAdmissibility
Lockheed Litigation Cases II (2005) – The False Promise of Clarity
Sargon Enterprises v. University of Southern Calif. (2012) – Clarity at Last
• Rigorous Gatekeeping Obligation• Reasonable Foundation, Reliable Methodology and Sound Principles• Reliable Reasoning, Analytical Gaps• Speculation• Intellectual Rigor• Dual Standard
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsAdmissibility
Post-Sargon• How Much Clarity?• Judicial Resistance• Garrett v. Howmedica Osteonics (2013)
o Summary Judgment Exceptions• Recent Trends in Applying Sargon
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsLimiting Scope of Expert Testimony
Limiting Scope of Expert Testimony
• Limiting Doctrines and Principles• Qualifications• Hearsay
o People v. Sanchez (2016)
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsLimiting Scope of Expert Testimony
Improper Subjects of Expert Testimony• Legal Conclusions• Ultimate Issues• Unexplained Conclusions and Ipse Dixits
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsTrial Examination Strategies
Daubert/Sargon at Trial• On the Stand• Closing Argument• Jury Instructions
-
How to Win the Battle of the ExpertsTrial Examination StrategiesTried and True Techniques
• $/Bias• Writings• Assumptions• Hypotheticals• Gaps• Hijacking the Opponent’s Expert
-
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
How to Avoid Punitive Damages
Alan LazarusWilliam HanssenFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Jeff KabanAUTODESK, INC.
-
How to Avoid Punitive Damages
Background
Avoidance Strategies
Specific Arguments to Combat Punitive Damages
Lessons Learned From Recent Case Law
Constitutional Limitations
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesBackground
The Basis for Punitive Damages
Civil Code 3294 – Oppression, Fraud or Malice (Despicable Conduct)“…where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.”
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesBackground
Disfavored Remedy
Penalty
Uninsurable
“Clear and Convincing” Evidence – Quality and Quantity
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesAvoidance Strategies
Win on LiabilityNo Punitive Damages Without Compensatory DamagesDon’t Anger the Jury
• Litigation Conduct Cannot Be The Basis For Punitive Damages, But It Can Be The Reason For Punitive Damages
• Hire Likeable Trial Lawyers
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesAvoidance Strategies
Don’t Anger the Jury• Have a Corporate Representative at Trial• Humanize the Company• Police Misconduct
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesAvoidance Strategies
Motion Practice• Pleadings Motions• Motion for Summary Adjudication• Motions in Limine• Trial Motions
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesSpecific Defense Arguments
No Notice• Notice of What – Require Similarity
Regulatory Compliance
Presumption of Regularity• How Could Conduct Be Despicable If it Was Authorized by
Expert Government Regulators?
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesSpecific Defense Arguments
Reasonable Disagreements and Reasonable Mistakes• Bad Faith Analogy• Failure to Warn and the First Amendment
“Taking Steps”• Taking Steps to Protect Safety is Inconsistent With Conscious
Disregard or Indifference to Safety
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesSpecific Defense Arguments
Ratification and Endorsement• Corporate Malice – Conduct of the Company• Vicarious Malice
“Managing Agent” – Substantial Discretionary Authority Over Decisions That Ultimately Determine Corporate Policy
Ratification/Authorization
Notice of Unfitness/Retention
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesSpecific Defense Arguments
Reprehensibility• Factors Under Federal/California Law• Type of Harm Caused/Risked – Physical vs. Economic• Isolated vs. Repeated Conduct• Vulnerability of Plaintiff• Evil Intent
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesSpecific Defense Arguments
Net Worth Issues• Prerequisite • Measurement• “Sting” Principle• Bifurcation
Comparable Awards
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesLessons Learned From Recent Case Law
Behavioral Lessons Learned From Recent Case Law Compare Two Recent Product Liability Cases
• Johnson v. Monsanto (2020)
• Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases (Echeverria) (2019)
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesLessons Learned From Recent Case Law
Litigation Lessons Learned From Recent Case Law
• Conservatorship of O.B.(2020) — The Clear and Convincing Evidence Requirement Applies on Summary Judgment and Appeal
• Bigler-Engler v. Breg (2017) – Claim Specificity Requirement
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesConstitutional Limitations
Due Process Review for Excessiveness
State Farm Ratios Remain Unsettled• Johnson v. Monsanto – 1:1 where case is close and compensatory
damages have a punitive component• Boeken v. Philip Morris (2005) – 9:1 where conduct extremely
reprehensible and defendant wealthy
-
How to Avoid Punitive DamagesConstitutional Limitations
Unconstitutional Bases for Punitive Damages – State Farm (2003)• Extraterritorial Conduct – Sovereignty Interests
• Attenuated Conduct – Punish Only for Conduct That Harmed Plaintiff
• Unadjudicated Third Party Harm is Not Punishable – Philip Morris v. Williams (2007)
The Reprehensibility Tightrope – Pattern/Scope of Misconduct vs. Third Party, Extraterritorial Harm
-
State of the Art: Avoiding Punitive Damages and Winning the Battle of the Experts
Alan Lazarus, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, San Francisco• [email protected]
William Hanssen, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Los Angeles• [email protected]
Jeff Kaban, Autodesk, Inc., San Rafael• [email protected]