Claim Ownership


Subscribed: 0Played: 0


In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by David Bilsker, partner at Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the biotechnology practice, and Margaret Shyr, associate at Quinn Emanuel. David and Margaret represent a Chinese-based DNA sequencing company, BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute), which recently made headlines in China for winning the largest ever U.S. jury award for a Chinese-based company. In this episode, John discusses how BGI ultimately prevailed against the U.S.-based leader in the DNA sequencing field, Illumina—not only in achieving this record-breaking jury verdict but also invalidating Illumina patents that were the cornerstone of its decades-long dominance in the sequencing market.The episode begins with John exploring how Illumina gained its market reputation and power in DNA sequencing, which plays a huge role in fighting and understanding diseases like COVID-19. In the early 2000s, Illumina bought a British company, Solexa, whose patents and technology allowed the former to maintain its market leadership in DNA sequencing ever since. Next, David introduces the background of BGI, which started in China to contribute to the Human Genome Project, and BGI’s eventual acquisition of a Silicon Valley-based sequencing company, Complete Genomics. John asks how Chinese DNA sequencing companies cross paths with U.S. patent litigators. David gives an overview of how Illumina initiated a worldwide campaign against BGI to prevent it from introducing its DNA sequencers to the market –Illumina even won a preliminary injunction in California. With BGI being legally foreclosed from the U.S. market, they recognized that they needed the Quinn Emanuel team, led by David, to take over.John discusses with David and Margaret the challenges of litigating against Illumina in California, where Illumina was asserting patents that had survived numerous challenges by other would-be competitors, ending these earlier market entry attempts. David and Margaret describe the invalidity strategy and evidence unearthed during discovery that led to the invalidation of Illumina’s flagship patent at trial. John also notes the team’s successful mitigation of Illumina’s predictable attempts to appeal to anti-Chinese sentiments to members of the jury. Despite having no non-infringement defenses, BGI was found to owe $8 million to Illumina on the remaining four patents—a mere fraction of Illumina’s ask.   Then John moves on to the Delaware case, tried only a few months later, in which David and Margaret turned the tables on Illumina and achieved the $333m verdict for Complete Genomics and BGI. They discuss the challenges of asserting CGI’s patents and defending against Illumina’s patents covering complex DNA sequencing technologies in a ten-day time-restricted trial. Margaret notes that Illumina’s main strategy against CGI’s patents was based on telling a “prior invention” story through an Illumina senior executive. David explains how the Quinn Emanuel team developed key infringement and validity evidence during fact discovery and its presentation at trial. John and David discuss David’s cross-examinations of Illumina’s lead expert, senior executive, and the mid-trial “surprise” from this executive that derailed Illumina’s case. They also explain the strategy to limit the precious trial time spent on Illumina’s asserted patents, but to inflict maximum surgical harm through cross-validation to invalidate all of Illumina’s patents. John also highlights the damages presented by another Quinn partner, David Perlson, who established to the jury that BGI should be awarded its full $333.8m claim. David describes the headline-making coverage of this victory in China and its significance for Chinese companies.  Finally, John, David, and Margaret discuss the ultimate settlement of this global lawsuit, which resulted in Illumina paying $325M to BGI, believed to be one of the largest patent verdicts ever.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782,  parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff.  US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code.The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence.  But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools.  For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine.John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world.Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Norman (Norm) E. Siegel, partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Missouri. He is the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in the $450 million settlement of a data breach class action against T-Mobile. Norm has been involved in many high-profile data breach cases, and served as lead counsel in the three largest data breach settlements reached to date: cases against T-Mobile, Equifax, and Capital One. Together, these settlements totaled over $2 billion in cash and other relief. Norm was recently named by Law360 as a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s Bar” for his work in class action litigation.The conversation begins by discussing how data breach litigation has evolved in the past 10 years. John asks about the type of claims that are typically asserted in these nationwide class actions. Norm explains that plaintiffs typically assert common law tort claims in these cases, especially negligence, breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. He adds that when the plaintiffs have an express contract with the defendant, such as when they have accounts with the defendant, they will often assert claims for breach of an express or implied contract that the defendant would keep the plaintiff’s information confidential. John and Norm turn their focus to recent California legislation establishing statutory damages for data breaches in general, as well as for breaches involving medical information. Because both acts are relatively new, the case law interpreting them is still developing. John and Norm discuss the role that expert testimony, California Attorney General’s Guidelines, and FTC recommendations play in determining what data security measures the defendant should have implemented in these cases.  They also discuss how to navigate the complexities of having both a nationwide class and a subclass of California plaintiffs who have recourse under these statutes in the same case.The conversation then moves to legislation in other states, as well as the prospects for federal legislation establishing uniform national standards regarding data security similar to the standards in Europe under the GDPR. John and Norm discuss recent attempts at such legislation and the obstacles that have prevented it from passing this far.They then discuss standing issues in data breach cases, and the key decisions, including Spokeo and TransUnion, that have recently clarified how standing may be established. They also discuss the issue of whether a defendant owes a duty to protect confidential information if it has no contract with a plaintiff and how that issue impacted the Equifax and Capital One cases.  John moves the conversation to the issues that discovery tends to focus on in data breach cases. Norm explains that defendants’ discovery has evolved from focusing on the measures they took to guard data to deposing plaintiffs about what damage they did or did not suffer because of a data breach. Norm adds that the plaintiffs’ discovery focuses primarily on their damages, but also on the defendant’s history of previous security breaches.This leads to a discussion of damages theories and how they have evolved in the past five years. John and Norm discuss alternatives to just compensating for out-of-pocket losses, including damages for the lost benefit of the bargain in contract cases, unjust enrichment, the time and effort spent to repair the breach, and nominal damages. They also explore the benefits to the plaintiff class of requiring the defendant to take specific measures to prevent future security breaches and to help plaintiffs to protect themselves when breaches occur.Finally, John and Norm discuss the settlement process, including how to allocate settlement amounts among the plaintiffs and the process to get a successful settlement for both sides. Norm believes that settlements result from always putting out high-qualit
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael A. Barlow, partner at Abrams & Bayliss LLP, and Silpa Maruri, partner at Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Together, they discuss litigation in Delaware, which John briefly highlights as the epicenter of both corporate America and high-end corporate litigation.The conversation begins with John asking Michael how Delaware managed to stake out a unique position of being the jurisdiction of choice for corporations, which has led to high-end and high-stakes litigation in Delaware courts. Michael notes the answer is two-fold. The first answer is former President Woodrow Wilson. He explains that Delaware largely adopted the same revolutionary law of New Jersey by the then Governor Wilson. The second answer is that Delaware has worked hard since to stay at the forefront by annually updating its laws and court system. They touch on how Nevada is trying to mimic Delaware but, unfortunately, is proving to be unsuccessful so far.Silpa explains the difference between the two types of courts in Delaware: the Court of Chancery and the Superior Court. Silpa highlights how the former is a court of equity; therefore, it hears matters sounding in equity, whereas the latter is a court of law. Together, John, Michael, and Silpa chew over the role of the Delaware Court of Chancery, analyzing the history of the courts as a foundation for understanding the wider role of the courts.John asks Silpa what lawyers and litigants should expect when they're litigating cases in Chancery Court, with Silpa noting that all trials are bench trials. She highlights how the Court of Chancery is especially bespoke in that not only is it the case that you're going to have the fact-finder be the judge, but that judge is going to be actively involved in deciding even minor things like motions to compel.The conversation is then steered towards what a trial is like in the Court of Chancery. In many jurisdictions, the date set for a trial is often moved and shifted, but Silpa notes that this specific court respects set trial dates. In addition, she notes that the Vice Chancellors are proactive during the trial.Finally, John, Michael & Silpa discuss the importance of certainty and predictability on matters of Delaware corporate law. Michael briefly notes how Delaware handles a significant number of sophisticated corporate transactions in the Court of Chancery. However, he notes that the court has a much broader role as a court of equity. Michael notes that there's a pretty broad set of cases that the court handles with the same attention to detail and focus that it brings to these corporate disputes.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.”The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s.Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do.Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing.This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details.Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which will start in the second quarter of 2023. This UPC will entertain patent litigation (civil litigation) and a court system that is genuinely supranational and separate from the national systems
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Sarah Heaton Concannon, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington D.C office and Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s SEC Enforcement Defense practice, and Xiao Liu, Co-Managing Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Shanghai office and Chair of Quinn Emanuel’s China Practice. Currently, 200 Chinese companies are publicly listed in the U.S. Those firms face the prospect of being delisted under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act due to a disagreement between American and Chinese authorities on the ability to conduct investigations and access audit work papers in China. John, Xiao and Sarah discuss the terms of the China-United States agreement whereby Chinese accounting firms can share certain information with American regulators about the finances of Chinese listed companies. Is it a done deal?John opens the conversation by asking Sarah what exactly has been agreed to by U.S. and Chinese officials. She talks about how the agreement gives them the ability to conduct on-site inspections in Hong Kong and touches on how Chinese privacy and security statutes have made it impossible for the SEC and the PCAOB to conduct their routine examinations of auditors. Sarah notes how this new agreement enables the PCAOB to have its inspectors on the ground as early as mid-September, seemingly giving the auditors free reign over which audits to inspect and unfettered access to audit work papers.John then asks Xiao why this deal and special rules are needed and queries whether it could be construed as an example of the U.S. picking on China. Xiao talks about how the history of the relationship between the two nations is an important factor to consider in understanding the relationship between the PCAOB, USA and China. He dives into how, on the one hand, there is Chinese law supposedly prohibiting these audit firms from scrutinizing these materials, and on the other hand, U.S. law, which states these audit firms do have the obligation to turn over papers. Xiao highlights how Chinese authorities have a strong interest in enforcing state secrets laws and personal privacy protection laws. However, at the same time, they care about public statements regarding agreements with U.S. authorities, especially those impacting the Chinese state-owned companies whose shares are listed in the U.S.Together, John, Sarah and Xiao dive deeper into how Chinese issuers have typically tapped the Hong Kong-based affiliates of the Big Four companies, granting the PCAOB access to working papers and the right to take testimony from audit company staff in China. Sarah talks through her predictions on the future timeline of events, noting that she expects the PCAOB to draft a shortlist of companies that were already front of mind in the enforcement space and that they will quickly try to move through those audit records.  The conversation shifts to a more financial perspective of the issue with John asking Xiao whether these Chinese companies will continue to want the ability to be listed in the U.S. Xiao explains how China is now comfortable with allowing PCAOB access to Chinese companies’ audit papers as China has strengthened its own state secrets laws, personal privacy laws, and cybersecurity laws. China has taken the necessary steps to protect itself from issues that they have encountered in the past with the U.S. before reaching the agreement. Finally, John asks what's next and what the future holds. Sarah believes that there will be some caution to see if the PCAOB is satisfied, but only time will tell how this agreement will play out. 
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Tom Clare, founder of Clare Locke LLP. Clare Locke specializes in defamation cases and was recently in the news for representing Daniel Michalow in his claim against Wall Street hedge fund, D.E. Shaw & Co. This episode delves into Mr. Michalow’s case in which Mr. Michalow was accused of sexual harassment. The case resulted in a $52 million FINRA award against de Shaw and Co. John starts the conversation by asking why more claims similar to Mr. Michalow’s aren’t asserted. When Tom responds, he explains in detail the burdens an individual plaintiff faces in bringing such a claim, including protracted litigation (in this case, four years) and enormous costs that most individuals cannot afford. Tom also provides the listener with a background to FINRA and arbitration under FINRA’s rules.John and Tom then dive deep into the case, first discussing the factual background, with Tom noting how D.E Shaw terminated Mr. Michalow’s contract at the hedge-fund firm citing allegations of inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Tom notes that this was not an employment case; Mr. Michalow did not dispute his termination. Rather, Mr. Michalow objected to the hedge fund’s statements to Business Insider that Mr. Michalow had engaged in gross violations of the firm's standards and values and that his employment was swiftly terminated as a result. These statements were made after Mr. Michalow had written to the head of the firm and asked that the firm tell the truth about his situation. John and Tom discuss that while the firm’s statements did not explicitly say that Mr. Michalow engaged in sexual misconduct, that is what the public understood the statements to mean.The discussion turns to the arbitration process itself, including the 25 days of hearings and extensive discovery conducted by the parties. Tom describes the burden of proving that his client did not engage in sexual misconduct as well as the differences in proving defamation claims for public figures as opposed to private figures. He also explores the importance of suggesting why a defendant was motivated to act as it did, even when that is not strictly an element the plaintiff must prove to make a claim.John and Tom turn to the role expert witnesses play in defamation cases. They explore the interplay between experts who testify to the linguistic history of the words at issue and those who testify to the real-world interpretation of words and how the latter now use social media comments to show the way people in the real world react to certain terms. They then turn to the results of the arbitration including the $52.1 million award and the findings posted on FINRA’s website.John and Tom then engage in a conversation about the role of reputation in today’s society in the workplace, within a professional community, at church, at home and in neighborhoods. They also discuss the legal obstacles to bringing a defamation claim, including that name calling, hyperbole and opinions are not actionable. Finally, the two discuss Tom’s decision to found his own firm devoted to bringing defamation claims, other high profile cases his firm is handling and his recommendations to individuals who find themselves facing defamatory statements.  Tom explains the importance of creating a written record, warning the defaming party of the consequences of its actions and promptly demanding retractions of defamatory statements.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Robert Charles O'Brien, the 27th National Security Advisor for the United States. He is also Partner Emeritus at Larson LLP and the Founder of the consulting firm, American Global Strategies. Together, they talk about the intersection between law and national security. John and Robert begin the conversation by outlining what the office of National Security Advisor does: act as the primary advisor to the President on all foreign policy and security issues.  Robert explains his role in pulling together a wide range of views on global issues, including divergent views throughout the federal government and making sure the President always had the best options and counsel possible to make informed decisions as well as ensuring those decisions are implemented.John and Robert discuss the degree to which the President faces potential legal issues surrounding foreign policy matters. Robert touches on how every department within the government has its own specialized legal team and how all policy decisions are vetted by a myriad of lawyers.  The two explore the various sources of law influencing foreign policy decisions, including Constitutional law, treaty obligations, federal statutes and regulations, as well as the wide latitude the Constitution grants the President in matters of foreign affairs. The conversation then moves to an in-depth discussion of China and the legal issues surrounding US-China trade disputes, with Robert noting how one of the great achievements of the Trump administration was raising the alarm on China. He touches on how turning a blind eye for the previous 40 years to important issues, such as China’s intellectual property theft, failed to achieve the desired results.Later, they discuss China’s occupation of the South China Sea, specifically its claim to islands it created in the sea, which has led to international arbitration. Robert describes China’s approach as drawing an imaginary border in the sea and asserting its authority over this body of water, where 50% of the world's trade flows. Robert dives deeper into the 2016 international case between China and the Philippines as an example of how China’s approach to the South China Sea violated the rights of other nations in the region, as well as constituting a series of environmental crimes. John then steers the conversation toward the sanctions that were put against PRC officials as a result of the end of democracy in Hong Kong, with Robert explaining the history of Hong Kong, and then directing the topic toward Hong Kong and China’s relationship shifting dramatically in 2020. He outlines how 2020 legislation and executive orders have reshaped the relationship between the US and Hong Kong and how Hong Kong will be treated going forward. Robert discusses what the change in the relationship between China and Hong Kong means for the shape of future trade, collaboration, and partnership between the US and Hong Kong.John and Robert then shift to discussing the importance of the actions taken by the US government in the world being seen as being consistent with the rule of law, including sanctions recently imposed on Russia.  They explore the seizures of property belonging to sanctioned individuals and the need to reconcile immediate foreign policy goals with the long-term interests of maintaining the strength of the economy and the strength of the legal system.  They expand upon the need for appropriate procedures to determine when seizures are necessary and how individuals can apply to regain their property when that is appropriate.The two end the podcast by discussing the continued importance of the rule of law in avoiding violence in both domestic and international affairs.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Bill Price, the founder and co-chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's National Trial Practice Group and a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. Bill could lay claim (though he never would, being very modest) to be possibly the greatest business jury trial lawyer of his generation. He has tried over 50 cases to verdict and lost only two of them. Representing plaintiffs, he has won five 9-figure verdicts, as well as one ten-figure verdict. He has obtained equally remarkable results representing defendants. He is a master of all aspects of trial practice but is best known as a brilliant cross-examiner. This episode, therefore, focuses on the art of cross-examination. John begins the conversation by asking Bill what he tries to accomplish during cross-examination. Bill explains that his goal is to have the witness either tell the same story Bill told in his opening statement or look foolish or dishonest not telling that story. Bill and John agree that this is a big ask, and they break down Bill’s methods for achieving it. John and Bill discuss how Bill first makes a list of all the things he wants the witness to say. Then he asks what controls he has for those things, such as documents or prior testimony. The two then delve into how Bill analyzes the potential off-ramps the witness has – for each topic, how could the witness hurt Bill’s case, or what to do if the witness says something detrimental? Bill explains how crucial it is to be prepared for every possibility.The two discuss how to get the most out of impeachment. Bill emphasizes that he structures each examination so the jury knows exactly why the subject that he impeaches a witness on is important to the case. This relates to Bill’s belief that collectively, the jury will have the common sense to understand a clear presentation, even if individually, some jurors might not follow every nuance.Along the way, John and Bill examine why Bill does not subscribe to several common adages about cross-examination, including “never ask a question that you don't know the answer to,” “don't ask the one question too many times,” and “only ask leading questions.” Throughout this discussion, Bill provides vivid examples from crosses he has taken throughout his career to illustrate his points.John steers the conversation towards the kind of persona and demeanor Bill tries to project during cross-examinations. Bill describes how he is very polite to start and then moves to building the case against the witness, ensuring the jury is always in sync with where he is. He notes that lawyers must be careful during cross-examinations to build their credibility to the point where the jury wants to listen to the examiner rather than the witness before they can start to act “a little testy” with the witness.John and Bill go on to discuss how to handle witnesses who won’t answer Bill’s questions directly or who insist on adding their own themes again and again. Bill provides examples of turning this behavior against the witness, as well as getting the judge to intervene to question the witness in front of the jury personally.Finally, John and Bill end their conversation by touching on their experiences working together previously, with John joking about coming up with ideas for Bill, only for Bill to quickly reject them. Bill touches on some of his favorite sources from which he developed his craft, including Herbert Stern’s ‘Trying Cases to Win,’ the transcripts of cross-examinations by great lawyers of the past, and trials within movies, including ‘Anatomy of a Murder’ and ‘My Cousin Vinny.’ Bill explains how these sources helped him to craft cross-examinations that obtain valuable admissions and make a difference in winning a case.
For Camille Vasquez’s first ever podcast, John Quinn interviews her about her high-profile work representing actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard, which has dominated headlines during this past year. A key member of Depp’s litigation team, Camille was recently elevated to partner at Brown Rudnick, where she works in the firm's Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group. John and Camille begin by discussing her background and early life growing up in Orange County, California, as well as the steps she took to get to her current position. Camille talks about earning her degree in Political Science & Communications, while focusing on her future legal career. Camille and John explore how she became the first lawyer in her family, tracing the steps she has taken throughout her career, from insurance defense law to trial work—something she loves most.The conversation then turns to how Camille came to represent actor Johnny Depp in his defamation case against his ex-wife, Amber Heard. They begin with Camille’s first impressions—she notes how shy, soft-spoken, and thoughtful Johnny was as a client, which surprised her. Then, they walk through the professional relationship Camille and Johnny have built, discussing litigation against his former entertainment lawyer, two former bodyguards, and several other matters. John and Camille then move on to discuss the Depp v. Heard dispute itself, providing background details on the claims made against Johnny. They explore the defamation case Johnny brought in the United Kingdom against a tabloid publication there which published an article calling Johnny “a wife-beater.” The two delve into the differences between evidentiary rules in the UK and the United States, and how those differences dramatically altered what evidence was admitted in the UK trial, to Johnny’s ultimate disadvantage in that case.The discussion then turns to the impact of the allegations against Johnny and the UK decision had on his life and career, including his legacy and the impact on his children. From there, the discussion moves to the counterclaims Amber brought against Johnny based on statements released by Johnny’s previous counsel and a discussion of the recent highly publicized trial.The discussion of the trial begins with Camille describing the biggest challenge she saw going into the trial: convincing the jury that Amber’s testimony was not credible. Camille compares Amber's performance over her three days of deposition with her less convincing performance at trial. She explains how she tied every question at the trial to previous statements Amber had made, especially audio recordings the couple had made of their arguments, at the advice of a therapist. Camille spells out how she used those recordings to let the jury hear how the couple were in private.  Elsewhere in the interview, Camille goes into more detail about Amber’s cross-examination, including how her habit of turning to the jury when she responded to Camille’s questions made her testimony seem unnatural and manufactured.Camille also explains the legal team's differing views on who their ideal juror would be and compares those views with the jury they ultimately got. John and Camille delve into Camille’s tactical decision to lead off her case with Johnny’s sister as well as several of his long-time employees to allow the jury to hear what kind of person Johnny was like in private, before Johnny himself took the stand. The two then analyze why the cross-examination of these witnesses failed to undermine their credibility with the jury.Camille goes on to describe Johnny’s performance on the stand where he was able to describe in his own words, and his own pace, his relationship with Amber, and why he was bringing the lawsuit. John and Camille then discuss Johnny’s performance during cross-examination, and how Camille supported him, ensuring that his authen
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by a professor of Ethics and Finance at NYU’s Stern School of Business and a director of the Center for Business and Human Rights, Michael Posner. He is also joined by Julianne Hughes-Jennett, Head of Quinn Emanuel’s ESG practice and experienced litigator of business and human rights issues. Together, they discuss what we really understand the term “human rights” to mean for business and the current challenges regarding human rights implementation across the business world.The three begin by delving into the meaning of “human rights” and their legal ramifications for business, including whether “human rights” means different things in different jurisdictions.Michael moves the conversation towards due diligence in relation to human rights and enforcement of human rights in connection with business, noting recent legislative examples, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was created to make sure the US doesn’t support forced labor among ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang region. Julianne picks up with recent EU developments, including the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and legislation such as the Failure to Prevent Act in France. She also posits whether the UK Bribery Act’s section 7, failure to prevent offense, could be a model for a provision for a mechanism for a failure to prevent human rights impact by the business. This could bring greater legal certainty for businesses and victims, alike.Finally, the trio mulls over the meaning of ESG and how it has evolved since its creation around 20 years ago. Michael notes that companies often heed such guidelines cynically in the name of ROI. He also emphasizes the financial implications of social issues related to labor supply chains.
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Assistant Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, Eric Ruben, Duane R. Lyons, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles Office, and Stacylyn Doore, a partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Boston Office. Together, they discuss three main topics surrounding guns: Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, regulation at both the state and federal levels, and pending litigation. Guns and the rights of US citizens to bear arms is a hotly contested policy issue in the USA, which has only become more relevant due to the recent mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and the recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Supreme Court decision.They begin by discussing how the Supreme Court held in Bruen ruled that the New York gun safety law at issue is unconstitutional. This law required a license to carry concealed weapons in public places and provided for discretion in the state’s provision of such licenses. Eric outlines the landscape, pre-Supreme Court decision – he touches on the lay of the land, outlining the historical context, as well as explaining how firearm regulation and control have primarily been executed at a state and local level, rather than federal, and that there has been a long history of gun control at the local/state level in the US, citing to registration requirements in the 1930s and long before. There have only been a handful of significant federal laws that would count as “gun control.” The recent bipartisan federal legislation was an exception. It was several decades earlier when the last federal gun safety law was passed.The conversation moves on to discussing the Heller case, another US Supreme Court decision which held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Duane notes that there are members of the courts that view guns and gun rights completely differently than people in large metropolitan areas and that many court decisions seem results driven. They move on to discuss the difference between where the focus should be and where the focus will actually be for future gun control regulation and litigation.Stacylyn moves the discussion toward future applications of Heller and Bruen, noting how we’ve seen a lot of historical analysis in the cases thus far and asking how much more there is to mine and to what extent comparable historical analogs are now required in all future gun regulation cases. Eric answers by discussing the means and scrutiny approach to Second Amendment cases, explaining that once the Second Amendment is in play, the government has to find historical analogs in order to justify modern-day gun regulation. However, Eric highlights that times have changed, noting that historical analogs may not suffice given the technological advancements in the intervening centuries.Duane moves the conversation towards whether there are any historical analogs showing that firearms were prohibited in some parts of the country. Eric notes how Britain in the 1300s had strict firearm laws, as well as other restrictions, such as Texas gun laws in 1871, which banned the public carry of pistols and public weapons. John touches on age limitations being a potential appropriate response in light of Bruen, as well as increased reliance on mandatory training and designation of sensitive areas. Finally, the conversation comes to a close, with Duane discussing ghost guns and how they’ve become the choice guns for criminals in the USA, with law enforcement seizing more and more ghost guns. Duane highlights Quinn Emanuel’s involvement in a lawsuit against a ghost gun company, Polymer80, a case that is set for trial next year. 
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lori Odierno, the lead lawyer and business affairs negotiator across WME’s sports division, to talk about the ability of college athletes to exploit their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.The conversation begins by discussing how the phenomenon of college athletes being able to exploit NIL rights resulted from antitrust litigation against the NCAA and a Supreme Court ruling that did not address NIL rights. They explain how the Supreme Court struck down NCAA restrictions on the extent to which colleges could reimburse athletes for educational expenses, and how that decision became the impetus for the NCAA to pivot its policy on NIL rights in a sweeping and unexpected way. Together, they dive into how the business and legal framework have evolved into, as Lori described it, “a web of complicated and ambiguous rules and laws” that are very hard for student-athletes to navigate. Lori explains that when the NCAA removed its restrictions on NIL rights, it set new rules for athletes to maintain eligibility. One of those rules requires athletes to comply with state laws concerning NIL rights. However, this can be difficult, as 24 states adopted NIL legislation or executive orders, and those laws were far from uniform.  The discussion moves on to examples of how law varies across states, including California and Texas, two of the richest recruiting territories in the country. They touch on how California encourages and promotes high school students engaging in NIL activity, whereas Texas prohibits them from doing so. In other states, an athlete’s NIL rights might be restricted by the state association for a given sport. In those states, if an athlete is at high school that is a member of the state association for a particular sport, the athlete may lose eligibility for engaging in NIL activity based on the state association’s rules.Lori and John also discuss the restrictions in some states that NIL contracts cannot extend past an athlete’s college eligibility. They observe that the intent behind such restrictions is likely to prevent large, powerful brands from locking young athletes into low-value long-term contracts early in their careers before they’ve established their personal brands. However, they also discuss the anomaly that these restrictions might prevent athletes from monetizing their NIL rights after their playing careers are over, but when their name, image, and likeness still have value.The discussion then turns to how agencies now analyze their potential opportunities with an athlete, by looking at NCAA rules, the laws of any states that might be involved, and the individual school’s policies. Lori and John note that despite the recent changes to NIL rights, athletes still cannot get paid to play a sport or for achieving certain benchmarks while playing.Lori and John then explore the arrangements that some booster clubs have at universities where they create collectives that provide NIL opportunities for athletes. These collectives are currently under investigation by the NCAA and vary widely in how they operate. The two compare collectives that offer the same income opportunities to every athlete and those that offer more to certain star players than to others. They also discuss the potential that these differently structured collectives have for affecting team chemistry over time. They explain that while boosters may form collectives for exploiting NIL rights, the schools the athletes attend cannot form such collectives as that would violate rules against offering students financial inducements.Finally, John asks Lori to provide some advice to current or prospective college athletes about what to expect when trying to navigate the NIL laws. Among other advice, she suggests that athletes exercise caution with their NIL rights, as a misstep in this field could jeopardize their eligibility. She also sug
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, as well as the Mayor of Miami and Counsel to Quinn Emanuel, Francis Suarez. Together, they discuss legal issues in crypto-currencies, low-income housing, and homelessness.The conversation begins with Mayor Suarez touching on the legal issues related to receiving compensation in crypto rather than legal tender, and discussing the use of applications that have the option to automatically or periodically convert money into crypto. Mayor Suarez also explains how SEC oversight requires that public officials avoid advocating for the use of crypto in any way, shape, or form. Mayor Adams provides the perspective of New York City, which states that people cannot be compensated directly in crypto, but allows them to convert to crypto after receiving the actual paycheck. He adds that his goal is to get to the point where city employees can be paid directly in crypto.John and both mayors then discuss the legal offices that serve their respective cities, including the size of the offices, the complexity of the issues they face, and their use of outside counsel.  They then focus on the challenging legal issues involved in creating low-income housing. Mayor Adams notes that zoning changes and location are the biggest challenges faced by the department for housing and other government departments, with many people not wanting new developments in their community. He observes that all of these issues must be navigated in the context of New York’s Uniform Land Use process. Mayor Suarez talks about a housing boom in Miami, which comes with its own legal issues, such as increased rental prices and Community Benefits Agreements, which allow developers to increase their zoning if they give back to the community. This raises constitutional issues involving property rights if the government tells a developer that the only way they can get more favorable zoning is if they make more of the building income accessible.The discussion then turns to the issue of rent control, which is prohibited in Florida, but long-established in New York. The two mayors discuss the pros and cons of rent control as a policy matter and the procedures New York City has in place to help it run properly.Finally, the episode turns to legal issues surrounding homelessness. Mayor Adams begins the conversation by touching on the fact that homelessness has unfortunately been a problem that New York City has faced for many years, which has only worsened due to COVID-19. Together, they chew over the legal process surrounding improving conditions for the homeless, with Mayor Adams highlighting the issue of how much say those homeless people who suffer from serious mental illnesses should have in determining where they live. He notes that there is a vocal minority who believe that the government should have no input in these decisions.Mayor Suarez then talks about the Miami city perspective where the local government was sued by the ACLU in the Pottinger case with the result that the police cannot arrest a person for being homeless. Mayor Suarez details how Miami is trying to adjust to the Pottinger decision through a new homelessness policy, which created a decentralized set of homeless assistance centers where people could be housed, receive drug and mental health treatment, and receive vocational training to be reintegrated into society. Mayor Suarez goes on to explain how this policy resulted in the federal court lifting the injunction that had been in place as a result of the Pottinger case.Created & produced by Podcast Partners: Sign up:  Producer:
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by distinguished lawyer, professor, author, and former partner at Quinn Emanuel, Susan Estrich. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding women’s rights, Roe v. Wade, gun rights, and the hijacking of ‘Me Too’.The podcast was recorded on the day the Supreme Court announced its decision overturning the 50-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade and allowing individual states to determine whether abortion is legal or not. As a long-time advocate for women’s rights and veteran of many political campaigns, Susan expressed that she had seen this decision coming, but she recognized that many were surprised by the decision because in addition to overturning 50 years of precedent, she believes that roughly 60/70% of the US population supports Roe v. Wade now, as opposed to 40 years ago when the decision did not have that level of support. Together, John and Susan discuss how precedents have been overturned in the past, but human rights and individual liberty have been expanded in the process. They then contrast the current situation in which, for the first time, an older generation in the US will have more individual rights than younger generations. They then go on to discuss how access to abortion will depend on wealth, socioeconomic status, and where one lives, with the new laws ignoring the rights of lower class, vulnerable women, and teenagers, but not affecting upper-class and wealthy women.The conversation then turns to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the week striking down the New York law on carrying handguns in public. The two discuss how the Court’s ruling ran counter to public opinion in the wake of the horrendous events in Uvalde, Texas. Finally, John and Susan examine the rationale set forth in the Heller opinion that first recognize an individual’s right to bear arms.  The conversation moves to what Susan describes as the ‘Hijacking of Me Too.’ Susan passionately argues that Amber Heard was wrong to call the verdict of the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard trial, “a defeat for the whole Me Too movement.” She opines that the verdict in that case was a defeat for Amber Heard individually rather than for the movement as a whole. She also observes that women who claim to represent the movement, but get caught lying about their individual cases might discourage legitimate victims from coming forward with their own stories. The discussion turns to how the owner of the Washington Commanders was pilloried in the press for hiring his own private investigator to look into allegations of sexual misconduct made against him. The two discuss the dangers to the legal system that will ensue if investigating allegations is considered proof of guilt and even rumors of misconduct against a prominent figure become impossible to survive.The two discuss the role that confidentiality provisions have in settling misconduct claims and how if confidentiality provisions are not respected, defendants have little incentive to settle. They touch upon California’s recent legislation prohibiting employers from requiring employees to arbitrate harassment claims and the effects that will have on settlements.They discuss the Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein cases and the danger of the cases as precedent. In particular, they examine the dangers of admitting into evidence everything from a man’s sexual past as well as a presumption that NDAs are automatically admissible. They then speculate whether an accuser’s previous history of making accusations should also be admissible. Finally, John and Susan discuss some of the fundamental positive changes brought about by the Me Too movement and how they have affected everyday behavior in the workplace.
Major universities are essentially huge businesses with massive infrastructure and numerous employees. They are large housing, food, athletic teams, and healthcare providers and are engaged in construction projects. All public and private roles within universities that receive federal funds are subject to government regulation with the same kinds of human resources problems as regular businesses. Legal issues besiege many universities; unlike corporations, which are used to a regulatory environment, universities are often not well equipped or staffed to address the myriad of legal issues they are facing now. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by American lawyer and academic administrator Michael K. Young, and partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office, former Ambassador Crystal Nix-Hines. Together they discuss the legal issues surrounding higher education.  Firstly, they discuss issues surrounding the changing landscape of universities' role in protecting their students and what those institutions are doing to protect themselves from legal cases and liabilities they are sent. They briefly touch on the cases against Penn State regarding sexual harassment. Does the changing landscape raise questions about the fine line between universities' duty to protect students on and off-campus incidents? This issue leads to John asking whether the political sphere plays a role in this. Former Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, changed the law, shifting away from the law created by the Obama administration around sexual harassment, with universities highlighting concerns that Secretary DeVos’s standards made it more difficult for students to pursue claims against their alleged offenders. Together they touch on the issues surrounding higher education and sports teams. Athletics budgets have been reduced in recent years, paired with the question of equality of opportunity for all genders, which has made it difficult to pinpoint what equality looks like from a legal point of view. They turn to legal issues surrounding diversity in admissions, and standardized tests, with litigation on this going back a decade. They discuss why the mission of equality is so vital to modern universities and consider the Supreme Court’s upcoming consideration of the lawsuits brought against the admissions policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. They debate whether the Supreme Court is likely to overturn or reaffirm its prior holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Will the Court decide that race cannot be considered a factor in admissions at all?Finally, John wraps up the podcast by asking about the types of issues being litigated in universities right now, with the majority of claims coming from the COVID-19 pandemic; 370 suits against 200 universities as a result of universities shifting to remote learning during the pandemic lockdowns.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: by Alexander RossiProducer 
One of the most difficult tasks facing our legal system is determining the compensation to provide individual victims of many of the large-scale tragic events that our country has faced in recent years.  In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by attorney Kenneth (Ken) Feinberg, a mediator extraordinaire who has settled some of the most high-profile mass tort and disaster disputes the US legal system has ever seen as well as managing the claims administration programs for terrible events that did not result in litigation. He has managed the victim compensation funds in high-profile tragedies including the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP oil spill fund, and the victim assistance funds established in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Sandy Hook shooting. Mr. Feinberg also resolved victim compensation issues in the General Motors ignition switch cases, the VW diesel emissions cases, the Boeing 737 MAX crash cases, the Eli Little DES cases, the Shoreham Nuclear Plant cases, Agent Orange, asbestos, among many others.  The conversation begins with exploring the ways that cases come to Mr. Feinberg, including defendants who realize they need to resolve a situation but first have to resolve how to divide the money they have available, plaintiffs who wish to avoid years of uncertain, costly litigation or when the government allocates money to compensate victims of a tragedy without any adversarial proceedings at all.  The two then discuss the need to establish consensus on clear procedures for the mediation before turning to the merits of the dispute and why 90 percent of cases settle on the second day of mediation.Mr. Feinberg and John then explore the extremely emotional and complicated problem of allocating the money among hundreds or thousands of claimants in these cases.  In particular, they explain the crucial role that transparency of the process plays in assuring claimants that there is no hidden agenda in how the proceeds will be divided up.  They detail how issues of criteria of eligibility, the methodology for calculating damages, proof requirements, and the right to a hearing all must be established at the outset for a settlement to succeed.  They then turn to objective ways to calculate damages for the death of a loved one and injury damages for large numbers of claimants without evaluating medical charts for every claimant.The two men then explore how these principles played out in high profile cases including the Boston Marathon bombings, the Pulse Nightclub attack, the Virginia Tech shootings, the 9/11 fund and the BP oil spill.  They explain how, in some cases, the number of potential cases might require hiring thousands of claims adjusters to determine which claimants are eligible for compensation and to screen for fraud as well as the need for a procedure to hear the appeals of those who believe their compensation under the process is not adequate.  Mr. Feinberg also explores in detail why, despite the magnitude of the disaster, the speed at which the families of the affected would receive the payment is vital in maintaining trust and belief in the entire process.Together, Mr. Feinberg and John examine potential court oversight to the process including situations such as 9/11 where there was no such oversight, identifying comparisons with the examples of the BP oil spill and the General Motors car recall. Throughout the podcast and especially at the end, Mr. Feinberg provides specific examples of the devastating personal stories he has heard from the victims of these horrific events and they discuss the emotional toll claims can and have had on  Created by: Podcast Partners &  
Cryptocurrencies are tearing up the financial and technological playbook with new projects breaking ground every day.  Despite recent fluctuations, the popularity of all things crypto continues to grow in leaps and bounds. Parallel to this astronomic growth is the mounting interest in a cryptocurrency regulatory framework to curb the potential for money-laundering and other crimes in this here-to-stay financial system. This week, Law, disrupted is tackling these very issues. In this episode of Law, disrupted, John Quinn is joined by Katie Lemire, Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan’s New York City office, and Ellen Zimiles, partner at Guidehouse, where she heads the Financial Services Advisory and Compliance practice.Together they discuss issues surrounding the crypto industry's legal and regulatory frameworks, diving into the role of financial regulators and institutions in the crypto realm. They speak to the historically mandated role of banks in preventing money-laundering and terrorist funding, and how crypto will operate successfully if required to do the same. They analyze compliance at both federal and state levels, with the New York state regulatory framework for cryptocurrency being a leading example for the other 49 states. They chew over the legal risks from a regulatory and compliance standpoint and finish by noting how regulators can keep up with crypto's explosive growth, as well as highlighting the future of anti-money-laundering compliance tools. Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: by Alexander RossiProducer 
In this episode of Law, disrupted, John joins the Honorable Alan D. Albright, United States District Judge for Western District of Texas, Waco Division. After less than four years as a federal judge, Judge Albright now hears more patent cases than any other judge in the United States, with a docket that includes 25% of all patent cases in the country.Judge Albright predicts what the next big technology battleground in patent cases will be, shares advice for lawyers who are interested in practicing patent law and offers tips for attorneys who practice before him.To start the discussion, Judge Albright describes his years of experience as a patent litigator and how that experience shaped his approach to management of his patent docket. Judge Albright explains how speed in moving patent cases to trial has led his courtroom to become a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs. He and John then discuss how he has been able to attract clerks with technical backgrounds and experience with patent law and how he consulted with patent lawyers from a wide range of firms to come up with rules for litigating patent cases that he hopes are objectively fair to all sides. Judge Albright explains why he believes that it is essential to stay all discovery until after the Markman hearing.Together, Judge Albright and John dissect the factors that make Texas a fertile venue (both Eastern District and Western District) for patent litigation. Discussing the Alice test and section 101 patent eligibility issues, Judge Albright shares his thoughts on where there is adequate certainty from the federal circuit on such issues, and where further guidance and clarity is needed. He and John then discuss the circumstances when it is beneficial to appoint a technical advisor on a case and when it is less beneficial. Judge Albright also discusses his utilization of magistrate judges. The conversation turns to Judge Albright’s goals for adjudicating cases expeditiously and the changes that he has introduced to his Standard Order Governing proceedings in his Court. Judge Albright also describes the short-term and permanent changes to the litigation process resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, including his shift to using Zoom for virtually all pretrial hearings and, in some instances, for trial witnesses. John and the judge then explore Judge Albright’s “dialog” with the Federal Circuit on venue issues, including how one writ of mandamus quickly grew to eight or more. They cover Judge Albright’s approach to deciding when a case should be heard in Austin, as opposed to Waco and how Judge Albright handles cases that are transferred from Waco to Austin. They then discuss Judge Albright’s views on when a case should or should not be stayed in favor of IPR proceedings.The conversation then shifts to what Judge Albright believes will be the next big technology battleground for patent cases: electric cars and the aspects of that technology that make it ripe for patent litigation.Finally, Judge Albright gives advice to young lawyers interested in going into the patent field, including what qualities patent lawyers should have if they do not have a technical background. He also gives advice to lawyers who practice before him: learn to work with the other side.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: by Alexander RossiProducer 
Nearly 300,000 United States service members and veterans are suing technology and manufacturing giant 3M over claims that their supply of military earplugs caused soldiers to suffer hearing loss, tinnitus, and other hearing difficulties. The dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs (CAEv2) were standard issue equipment for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for over 10 years.In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John Quinn and his guests, Matt Hosen and Bryan Alystock, discuss how this defective earplug litigation started and evolved into the largest consolidated mass tort litigation in history.To open the episode, Matt Hosen shares how, as a second year Quinn Emanuel associate, he found, buried in a large document production in an antitrust case in which the firm represented a company called Moldex-Metric, an internal 3M document which became known as “The Flange Report.” He explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective.Matt goes on to describe how Hal Barza, a former Quinn Emanuel partner, used the Flange Report in depositions of 3M laboratory employees to great effect; leading not only to the resolution of the antitrust case, but also the commencement of a whistleblower False Claims Act (Qui Tam) case brought against 3M on behalf of the U.S. government. In connection with this Qui Tam lawsuit, the Flange Report was brought to the government’s attention, leading to the United States Department of Justice’s intervention in the case. 3M entered into a settlement with the U.S. government in 2018 agreeing to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations it knowingly sold the earplugs to the U.S. military without disclosing the CAEv2 defects. The DOJ issued a public press release in July 2018 announcing the Qui Tam settlement.Bryan Aylstock, managing and founding partner of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, based in Pensacola, Florida, then joins the conversation to explain how this DOJ press release led to the plaintiffs’ mass tort bar filing cases all over the United States on behalf of U.S. service members alleging product defect, failure to warn and fraud claims. These cases were later consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Pensacola before Chief District Court Judge Casey Rodgers.Judge Rodgers appointed the Alystock firm to lead a Plaintiff Leadership Committee consisting of over three dozen law firms, including Quinn Emanuel. Judge Rodgers oversaw all aspects of discovery in the MDL, and with input from plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel, selected individual service members to serve as bellwether plaintiffs. Bellwether trials began in April, 2021.Plaintiff service members have achieved victory in 9 of the 15 bellwether trials to date, receiving over $222 million in damages. In the most recent bellwether trial, a Gainesville, Florida jury found in favor of the army veteran on all counts and awarded $2.2 million in compensatory damages. If the average awards in these bellwether cases, including the defense verdicts, are applied across the nearly 300,000 service member lawsuits currently pending, 3M’s total exposure would be over $1 trillion.With the bellwether process almost concluded, the guests explain how hundreds of individual lawsuits are now completing discovery, prior to being remanded to federal judges across the country for trial.Created & produced by Podcast PartnersSign up to receive email updates when a new episode drops at: by Alexander Rossi Producer 
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store