Author Archives: William A. Ruskin

Remote Deposition Witness Preparation: Best Practices

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Covid-19 has ushered in the era of the remote deposition. Preparing a client to be an effective witness in a remote deposition setting creates unique challenges. This article will discuss some of the concerns that often arise in that deposition preparation process. Many of the ideas expressed here are discussed in a recent article titled, “Maximizing Witness Effectiveness in a Remote Deposition”, by Ann T Greeley, Ph.D, a psychologist and trial consultant at DecisionQuest. It occurred to me reading her article that although I have competently prepared witnesses for deposition for decades, remote deposition preparation may require some fine-turning of … Continue reading →

Defending Remote Corporate Depositions in the Covid-19 Era

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

This article will discuss best practices for defendant’s counsel to follow in representing a corporate client remotely (e.g., via Zoom, GoToMeeting, or WebEx). Increasingly, it is the expectation of courts, both state and federal, that deposition discovery will continue during the pandemic. How can you, as the defense lawyer, fulfill your primary duty of providing effective counsel to the client when the prep is conducted long distance and you will not be able to be in the same room as your client during the deposition? In a document-intensive deposition, how can you ensure that the client is fully capable of … Continue reading →

Infringing Unicorns and Knock-off Elves in the Covid-19 Public Emergency

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

There are few light moments during a pandemic, but the Order of the Hon. Steven Seeger, a federal district court judge in Chicago sitting in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued on March 18, 2020, in an infringement case brought by Art Ask Agency, is scathing. The Order is a biting commentary, penned with deadpan sarcasm, about litigants, such as the plaintiff here, who were clearly oblivious to a “fast-developing public health emergency” in repeatedly demanding that the federal district court hold a hearing to enjoin the sale of “infringing unicorns and … Continue reading →

NY Appeals Court Shifts Goal Posts For Environmental Class Actions

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

The decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Burdick v. Tonoga, Inc., decided November 21, 2019, affirms the trial court’s decision certifying four classes, including a medical monitoring class, arising from claims of property damage and personal injury allegedly resulting from PFOA exposure. The decision potentially expands significantly class action plaintiffs’ use of CPLR 901 and CPLR 902, New York’s rules governing class certification, in environmental tort actions. Although the members of the medical monitoring class do not claim to suffer presently from any demonstrated PFOA-related physical injury, the appellate court nonetheless determined that certification of a medical monitoring … Continue reading →

WATER: Is it a Public Trust Resource? Private Resource? Or Both?

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

co-authored by Devon Bombassei What is the Public Trust Doctrine? Is it a concept that can be wielded like a sword to bring environmental miscreants to their knees in a courtroom? Or is it a shield to protect the citizenry against overzealous private interests that would seek to use this precious natural resource for profit and corporate gain? As the debate over the use of water intensifies, the water industry–comprised of regional, municipal and private companies–is unsure whether the formal adoption of the Public Trust Doctrine by states and municipal entities may undermine long accepted business models and place constraints … Continue reading →

Causation Science Really Does Matter In NY Toxic Tort Litigation

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

In what may arguably be the most terse “landmark decision” to be published by the New York Court of Appeals (68 words/two sentences), New York’s highest court affirmed a trial court order setting aside an $11m jury verdict holding Ford Motor Company liable for a former auto mechanic’s mesothelioma, alleged to have been caused by 25 years of exposure to asbestos while servicing Ford vehicles.    The tweet-length decision in Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products, was a re-affirmation by the New York Court of Appeals of its reasoning in two prior key decisions, Parker v. Mobil Oil, 7 NY3d 434 [2006] and Cornell v 360 W. 51st … Continue reading →

Why The Long Island Sound Watershed Requires Protection

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

There is the Long Island Sound and then there is the Long Island Sound Watershed.  Before you can effectively protect Long Island Sound from environmental contamination, it is necessary to understand the Long Island Sound Watershed and its strategic role in maintaining the water quality in Long Island Sound. We are all familiar with Long Island Sound.  With some 600 miles of coastline, the Sound covers over 1,320 square miles.  The Sound is an estuary, a body of water where fresh water from rivers draining from the land mixes with salt water from the Atlantic Ocean.  The Sound’s coastline includes more than 60 bays, with beaches … Continue reading →

Defendants Enter Batter’s Box With Two Strikes Already Called

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Until April 3, 2018 when the New York Court of Appeals handed down Rodriguez v. City of New York, it was well-established law in personal injury litigation in New York that a plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment if he could not make a prima facie showing he was free of comparative negligence. The sharply divided Rodriguez court, overturning precedent, held in a controversial 4-3 decision that requiring a plaintiff to make such a showing is inconsistent with Article 14-A of the CPLR, which codified the State’s comparative negligence principles. From now on, a plaintiff responsible for 99 percent of culpability may have an opportunity to prevail on a motion … Continue reading →

Sen. Chris Murphy Battles Headwinds To Protect Connecticut’s Environment

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

Senator Chris Murphy  believes  that everything that one needs to know about environmental conservation is embodied in the rototiller rule, which he learned from his Senate colleague, Angus King of Maine.  In short, the rototiller rule is that if you borrow your neighbor’s rototiller, you should always give it back in as good of shape as you got it.  If you screw up the rototiller, it is your obligation to fix it.   According to Murphy, we have the planet on loan from future generations and we have the solemn responsibility to leave our descendants with the planet in as good shape as we found it. This should not be considered a partisan issue, … Continue reading →

Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence: A “Must-Have” In Defense Lawyer’s Toolbox

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on by

The Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (3rd Ed.) (“RMSE Third”), published by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Research Council of the National Academies,  is an indispensable tool that can support defense lawyers’ efforts  in making their Daubert  motions persuasive.  Contrary to the suggestion made in a recent article appearing in the DRI publication, The Voice (2/21/18), that RMSE Third is “an overlooked litigator’s tool”, it should be consulted not just when crafting Daubert arguments, but in preparing to take plaintiff’s expert’s deposition as well.  In summary, RMSE Third provides a roadmap for handling most, if not all, of the complex technical and scientific issues in your matters.  You overlook … Continue reading →