• Law.com | Analysis

    Helpful But Prejudicial Trial Evidence May Come at a Cost

    October 7, 2020

    Be careful what you ask for. If that juicy prejudicial evidence seems just too good to pass up, you should consider the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in 'Macsherry v. Sparrows Point.'

  • Law.com | Analysis

    Lessons Learned: Destroying Relevant Evidence Can Be Catastrophic in Litigation

    August 5, 2020

    The Fourth Circuit upholds severe sanctions against a party who fails to preserve evidence in litigation.

  • Law.com | Analysis

    Fourth Circuit Ruling Limits Punitive Damages Awards for Sexual Harassment under Title VII

    June 8, 2020

    Punitive damages are an extraordinary remedy under Title VII, and in order to obtain them, the plaintiff must satisfy a higher standard. Nonetheless, the threat of substantial punitive damages under Title VII should put employers on alert.

  • Law.com | Analysis

    Personal Jurisdiction Does Restrict Where a Corporation Can Be Sued

    April 20, 2020

    A South Carolina resident sued Marriott in a federal court in his home state after suffering an injury in a Marriott-affiliated hotel overseas. The Fourth Circuit's decision provides helpful guidance on the scope of personal jurisdiction over corporations, and offers some food for thought for litigants.

  • Law.com | Analysis

    Fourth Circuit Considers Limits of Federalism

    February 10, 2020

    One recent Fourth Circuit decision is an example of the court exploring the role of federalism in federal jurisdiction, in what is known as the "Rooker-Feldman" doctrine.

  • Law.com | Analysis

    Fourth Circuit: Attorney-Client Privilege Is Worth Fighting For

    December 9, 2019

    The Fourth Circuit's decision highlights the importance of this protection for effective attorney-client relationships, and a willingness to safeguard the privilege when it is at risk.

  • Law.com

    What's Next: Does America Need A Federal Privacy Agency? + Spies in the Valley + California Spills Details

    November 13, 2019

    Lawyers are sounding off on the push to create a federal agency to oversee user privacy.

  • IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON)

    Publication Date: 2010-12-03
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
    Judge: Before: Feinberg and Livingston, C.JJ., and Koeltl, D.J.*
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas R. Julin, Jamie Z. Isani, Patricia Acosta, Hunton & Williams LLP, Miami, FL; Robert B. Hemley, Matthew B. Byrne, Gravel & Shea, P.A, Burlington, VT; Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants IMS Health Inc. and Source Healthcare Analytics, Inc.. Mark A. Ash, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff-Appellant Verispan LLC. Robert N. Weiner, Jeffrey L. Handwerker, Sarah Brackney Arni, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC; Karen McAndrew, Linda J. Cohen, Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, VT, for Plaintiff-Appellant Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.
    for defendant: William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of the State of Vermont; Bridget C. Asay, Assistant Attorney General; Sarah E.B. London, Kate G. Duffy, David R. Cassetty, Assistants Attorneys General, on the brief, Montpelier, VT, for Defendants-Appellees.

    Case Number: 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON)

    Cite as: IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON), NYLJ 1202475625582, at *1 (2d Cir., Decided November 23, 2010)Before: Feinberg and Living

  • IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON)

    Publication Date: 2010-12-03
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
    Judge: Before: Feinberg and Livingston, C.JJ., and Koeltl, D.J.*
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas R. Julin, Jamie Z. Isani, Patricia Acosta, Hunton & Williams LLP, Miami, FL; Robert B. Hemley, Matthew B. Byrne, Gravel & Shea, P.A, Burlington, VT; Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants IMS Health Inc. and Source Healthcare Analytics, Inc.. Mark A. Ash, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff-Appellant Verispan LLC. Robert N. Weiner, Jeffrey L. Handwerker, Sarah Brackney Arni, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC; Karen McAndrew, Linda J. Cohen, Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, VT, for Plaintiff-Appellant Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.
    for defendant: William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of the State of Vermont; Bridget C. Asay, Assistant Attorney General; Sarah E.B. London, Kate G. Duffy, David R. Cassetty, Assistants Attorneys General, on the brief, Montpelier, VT, for Defendants-Appellees.

    Case Number: 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON)

    Cite as: IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 09-1913-cv (L), 09-2056-cv (CON), NYLJ 1202475625582, at *1 (2d Cir., Decided November 23, 2010)Before: Feinberg and Living

  • In re Pepsico Inc. Bottled Water Marketing and SalesPractices Litigation, MDL No. 1903

    Publication Date: 2008-12-19
    Practice Area:
    Industry:
    Date Filed: 2008-12-05
    Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District
    Judge: Seibel
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number:

    District Judge Cathy Seibel U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Appearances: Lead and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs: Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq./