On July 9^th, 2025, the Eastern District of New York ruled on a series of motions in Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Company, a case brought by the Suffolk County Water Authority (“Suffolk”) against chemical manufacturers for the alleged contamination of Suffolk’s groundwater supply with 1,4-dioxane (“dioxane”), a chemical classified by the EPA as a “probable human carcinogen.”  Judge Gershon issued an opinion allowing most of the plaintiff’s common law tort claims to proceed to trial while clarifying the standard for expert admissibility under recently amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Causation, Contamination, Drinking Water, Evidence, Expert Witness, Groundwater, Negligence, New York, Nuisance, Pollutants, Strict Liability, Trespass, Water

On January 2, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an order to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Michaels in a series of cases related to the corrosive water in Flint, Michigan. Carthan, et al. v. Snyder et al, No. 5:16-cv-1044 (E.D. Mich. 2024). The court held that Dr. Michaels, in applying a methodology commonly employed by epidemiologists known as the Bradford Hill guidelines, failed to establish an association between corrosive water and skin and hair conditions, and without such, the testimony was unreliable and could not be used to infer causation between Flint water and reported skin rashes and hair loss.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Evidence, Expert Witness, Toxic Torts

In In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 2:20-cv-03785 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the special master granted a motion to compel discovery of documents relating to an internal investigation performed by outside counsel for defendant FirstEnergy Corp. (“First Energy”) regarding the company’s role in an alleged bribery scheme.  Because of a lack of admissible supporting evidence, the special master rejected the company’s position that the materials were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine and ordered FirstEnergy to produce all documents related to the internal investigation. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Attorney-Client, Evidence, Internal Investigation, Privilege, Work Product