Author Archives: David S. Osterman

Necessarily Unhelpful: If Expert Opinion Is ‘Unnecessary’ for the Plaintiff to Prove a Warning Case, Can the Defendant Seek to Exclude It as ‘Unhelpful?’

A recent trial court opinion granting a defendant’s motion to strike an expert’s “net opinion” on the sufficiency of a warning, but then denying summary judgment on the grounds that expert testimony is not necessary in an otherwise straightforward failure-to-warn case, raises an interesting question: If expert testimony is not necessary to prove a failure-to-warn claim in the first instance, then shouldn’t defendants be moving to strike the expert testimony more often on the grounds that such testimony is “unhelpful” to the jury? Vazquez v.

Continue Reading....

NJ District Court Applies ‘Rigorous Analysis’ to Predominance Requirement in Denying Class Certification against Microsoft

The Zune 30, Microsoft’s somewhat ill-fated portable music and video player, was the subject of suit alleging that the defects in the player’s design caused the LCD screen to crack.  The crux of  plaintiffs’ allegations were that the internal configuration of the Zune’s elements created hard points, these hard points exerted pressure on the underside of the LCD screen, pressure which, given the differing tensile strengths of the glass LCD display and plastic protective lens which overlaid it, caused the LCD screen to fracture. The…

Continue Reading....