November 10, 2023

The Business of Law

Pittsburgh, PA

(By Daniel Bates featuring Donald C. Bluedorn II)

Some things never change.

And that’s a good thing, according to Donald C. Bluedorn, II, managing shareholder of Pittsburgh law firm Babst Calland, who has devoted most of his career at the firm to championing a business model and culture that, he said, have fostered long-term, sustainable growth since the firm’s inception in 1986.

That business model and culture, Bluedorn said, are what attracted him to the firm in the first place as a young lawyer, only a year after Babst Calland was established. He also credits this with fueling the firm’s growth across five office locations, including Pittsburgh, Washington, D.C., Charleston, W.Va., State College, Pa., and Harrisburg, Pa., along with several remote “outpost” offices. Such growth also has made Babst Calland one of Pittsburgh’s top law firms.

“When I came to Babst Calland from another larger firm, there were two things that really impressed me and made me want to become part of Babst Calland,” Bluedorn said. “One was there was a lot of flexibility and a lot of ability to control your own destiny as a lawyer and become what you want to be – an opportunity to practice law, manage clients, and gain a lot of hands-on experience, and that really appealed to me as a young lawyer.”

The second factor, he continued, was – and still is – the firm’s culture. “I loved the culture. People were treated with mutual respect, and everyone worked together. And although we’ve grown in size and we’ve added lawyers and practice areas, I think those two attributes of the firm have really stayed the same. They’re part of what define us and are part of what we work to make sure we maintain because this is what differentiates us and makes us so successful in the marketplace.”

He added: “It allows us to retain and attract really sophisticated talent. …

November 10, 2023

2023 Babst Calland Report—Legal & Regulatory Perspectives For The Energy Industry

The American Oil and Gas Reporter

(By Del Torkelson)

Featuring a Briefing from U.S. Senator John Barrasso

In “The 2023 Babst Calland Report—Legal & Regulatory Perspectives for the Energy Industry,” which offers updates on top legal and public policy matters confronting the country’s oil and natural gas industry, U.S. Senator John Barrasso, R-Wy., stresses the importance of permitting reform. The law firm’s annual report also explores several other major topics, including climate policy and ESG matters, as well as trends in litigation,

“The U.S. energy sector remains as dynamic as ever as Babst Calland offers its 13th annual perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing all parts of the energy value chain,” the report opens. “This year, U.S. natural gas production and demand is expected to reach record highs. Natural gas production has doubled since 2006 and increasing demand has turned the United States into a leading global natural gas producer. Investments in liquified natural gas infrastructure continue as the United States becomes the top LNG exporter in the world.”

Principles For Reform

Barrasso’s briefing appears in a short video introduced by Babst Calland attorneys A.A. Moore Capito, a shareholder in the Charleston, W.V., office, and Jim Curry, managing shareholder in the Washington office. They also close the video by reflecting on the senator’s remarks.

Barrasso opens by lamenting the extent to which the Biden administration’s energy policies have frustrated U.S. production of traditional energy sources.

When Barrasso began his Senate tenure in 2007, he recounts, the United States imported 29% of its energy, but by 2019, U.S. producers had transformed the country into a net energy exporter. Although growing domestic production has boosted the U.S. …

November 10, 2023

Appealing a Collateral Order? Fresh Guidance on Rule 313

Pittsburgh, PA

Litigation Legal Perspective

(By Jenn Malik)

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313 provides for appeals as of right from a collateral order of a trial court. 210 Pa.Code Rule 313(b) defines an appealable collateral order as “an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.” The following is a summary of recent appellate decisions on the collateral order doctrine.

First, the Commonwealth Court, in Bethke v. City of Philadelphia, No. 406 CD 2022, 2023 WL 3295555 (Pa. Cmwlth., May 8, 2023) (memorandum), Bethke v. City of Philadelphia, 406 C.D. 2022, considered the collateral-order doctrine in a matter involving an untimely response to a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request.  After the City did not respond to the request, resulting in a deemed denial, the requester appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR), which held that that there were no applicable exceptions under the RTKL and ordered the City to produce the records. Id. at 1.  After failing to timely appeal the OOR’s decision to the Court of Common Pleas, the City produced redacted documents; the requester then filed an action in mandamus seeking the unredacted records. Id.  Of note, the trial court ordered the City to file a motion nunc pro tunc to appeal retroactively the OOR’s determination, which order the requester appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Id. at 1-2.  On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that the matter was immediately appealable as a collateral order and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over an untimely appeal of the OOR’s determination, which could not be remedied by nunc pro tunc relief. …

November 9, 2023

Divided Commonwealth Court Holds Local Agencies are Prohibited from Adding Non-Emergency and Non-De Minimis Agenda Items to the Posted Agenda

Pittsburgh, PA

Public Sector Alert

(By Max Junker and Anna Jewart)

On June 30, 2021, Governor Tom Wolf signed Senate Bill 554 into law as Act 65 of 2021 which amended the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§701-716, (Sunshine Act) to require that agencies subject to the Act make their meeting agendas available to the public, and set restrictions on taking official action on any item not listed on the agenda as published. These changes took effect on August 30, 2021.

Act 65 amended Section 709 of the Sunshine Act to require that agencies post a copy of the agenda for the meeting, including a listing of each matter of agency business that will be or may be the subject of deliberation or official action on its official website, at the meeting location, and at its principal office no later than 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting. In addition, Act 65 added a new Section 712.1 which identified the instances in which official action could be taken on an item not included in the posted agenda. Early interpretations of Section 712.1 indicated that the new subsection (e) could be used to add any item to the agenda so long as it was added by majority vote and the agenda was revised and reposted within 24 hours of the meeting.  Schmidt v. Ringgold School District, No. 2022-0128 (Ct. Comm. Pls. Washington Co. Dec. 9, 2022).

However, in a reported decision issued November 8, 2023, the Commonwealth Court, in Coleman v. Parkland School District, No. 1416 C.D. 2022 (Pa. Cmwlth. Nov. 8, 2023) rejected this interpretation and determined that in order for official action to be taken on an item not included on the agenda posted in accordance with Section 709 of the Sunshine Act, the issue must meet one of the three enumerated exceptions identified in Sections 712.1(b),(c) or (d) of the Sunshine Act. …

November 7, 2023

Trick or Treat? EPA Tightens Reporting Requirements for PFAS and other Chemicals of Special Concern

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Environmental Alert

(By Joseph Schaeffer and Jessica Deyoe)

In a final rule published in the Federal Register this Halloween, which we previewed at the time of proposal, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) increased the reporting requirements for per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other chemicals of special concern under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know-Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050 (EPCRA), and the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13109 (PPA). 88 Fed. Reg. 74360. EPA believes that these changes will provide regulators, industry, and the public with more insight into the presence of these chemicals. The rule will take effect on November 30, 2023, and will apply to the reporting year beginning on January 1, 2024.

EPCRA § 313 establishes a toxics release inventory (TRI) that requires certain facilities manufacturing, processing, or using chemicals above certain threshold amounts to report environmental releases and waste management activities for those chemicals on an annual basis. PPA § 6607 requires facilities to report pollution prevention and recycling data for chemicals listed on the TRI, as well. Among the chemicals listed on the TRI, EPA has designated certain chemicals as “chemicals of special concern.” See 40 C.F.R. 372.28. Chemicals of special concern are excluded from de minimis exemptions, as well as the use of simplified reporting forms and range reporting. Historically, chemicals of special concern were those that EPA had identified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

As part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA), Congress established two methods for adding PFAS to the TRI. Section 7321(b) of the NDAA added 14 PFAS by name or Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number and other PFAS that met specified criteria. …

November 6, 2023

Abigail Reecer Joins Babst Calland

Washington, DC

Abigail M. Reecer recently joined Babst Calland as an associate in the Energy and Natural Resources Group and Pipeline and HazMat Safety Practice. Ms. Reecer represents client in pipeline safety matters before the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), state agencies, and federal courts.

Prior to joining Babst Calland, Ms. Reecer was an associate with Hollingsworth LLP. He is a 2021 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center.

 

November 6, 2023

CAA Gag Clause Attestation Deadline Soon Approaching

Pittsburgh, PA

Employment Alert

(By Jenn Malik)

Employers and plan sponsors: December 31, 2023 is the deadline for submission of the inaugural Section 201 Gag Clause Prohibition Compliance Attestation (Attestation) to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments). The federal government passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 2020 (CAA) with the goal of improving price and quality transparency in healthcare. Specifically, Section 201 of the CAA prohibits employers/plan sponsors from entering into contractual arrangements that contain “gag clauses”, i.e. contractual provisions that would prevent a plan from accessing provider cost and quality information for plan participants. To ensure compliance, Section 201 requires that plans submit an annual attestation that the plan did not enter any agreements that contain gag clauses. This requirement applies to ERISA plans, non-federal governmental plans, church plans, grandfathered group health plans, and plans sold on the health insurance marketplace.

The Attestation can be completed online on CMS’s website either by the plan, on its own behalf, or a third party – typically, a TPA or health insurer. Submissions require an authentication code generated by the federal government to access the webform where the attestation can be made which is available here: https://hios.cms.gov/HIOS-GCPCA-UI.

The individual submitting the Attestation (Submitter), whether it be an authorized representative of the plan or a third-party, should be prepared to provide the following information to complete the Attestation:

  • Submitter’s name and contact information;
  • The Reporting Entity’s, i.e. Plan’s, information including a point of contact that can respond to the Departments’ questions about compliance with the prohibition on gag clauses;
  • A certification that the Reporting Entity is in compliance with the prohibition on gag clauses and has not entered into an agreement with a provider, network, or association of providers, TPA, or other service provider offering access to a network of providers that would directly or indirectly restrict Reporting Entity from disclosing information on cost, quality of care data, and certain other information to participants, beneficiaries or enrollees.1

Thereafter, plans must file an Attestation annually by December 31. …

November 2, 2023

University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania Department of Health Release Studies Exploring the Relationships Between Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Specific Health Issues in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Oil & Gas

(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern, Gina F. Buchman and Matthew C. Wood)

In August 2023, the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health and the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) released three “observational epidemiological” studies presenting findings of potential health impacts from human exposure to unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) activities. The studies, which were conducted in eight counties in southwestern Pennsylvania, excluding the City of Pittsburgh, focused on three specific health issues: (1) asthma, (2) birth outcomes, and (3) certain childhood cancers.

In the Asthma Study, researchers reviewed medical treatment for asthma (categorized by severity), as well as how close the patient lived to UNGD activities (considering the number of wells, production volume, and the phase of well development, i.e., preparation, drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and production). The study found no relationship between asthma exacerbations and proximity to wells during the well pad preparation, drilling, or hydraulic fracturing phases, but found an increase during the production phase. The increases were fairly consistent in the lower, moderate, and higher exposure groups and therefore, the expected dose/response relationship (i.e., more asthma exacerbations with more exposure) was not found. See Univ. of Pittsburgh Sch. of Pub. Health, “Hydraulic Fracturing Epidemiology Research Studies: Asthma Outcomes” (July 31, 2023); DOH, “PA Health and Environment Study: Asthma” (Aug. 15, 2023).

For the Birth Outcomes Study, researchers reviewed birth records and the distance mothers lived from UNGD activities and other industrial activities. Researchers for the Birth Outcomes Study considered the number of wells, production volume, and the phase of well development, in addition to potential exposure from certain facilities, i.e., impoundment ponds, facilities accepting oil and gas waste, compressor stations, Superfund sites, and industrial sites with a toxic release inventory. …

November 2, 2023

To Infinity and Beyond? Pa. Supreme Court Casts Doubt Upon Presumptive Constitutional Limit for Punitive Damages

Harrisburg, PA and Charleston, WV

Legal Intelligencer

(by Casey Coyle, Stefanie Mekilo and Austin Rogers)

1995 was a watershed year.  Michael Jordan returned to the NBA after a two-year hiatus, Brad Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine, and the world met Buzz Lightyear for the first time.  Today, Buzz remains a constant fixture in pop culture, thanks largely to his signature catchphrase: “To Infinity and . . . Beyond!”  Indeed, Buzz himself may use that phrase to describe the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bert Co. v. Turk, 298 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2023), which calls into question the presumptive constitutional limit for punitive damages awards.

Background

In 2017, four employees with non-solicitation agreements left their employment with The Bert Company d/b/a Northwest Insurance Services and joined First National Insurance Agency, LLC.  They moved as part of what is known in business parlance as a “lift-out,” a practice in which a group of employees from one company are hired by a competitor.  Northwest filed suit and obtained a preliminary injunction enforcing the agreements.  At the ensuing trial, the jury exonerated three employees from any liability and exonerated the corporate defendants on two claims.  While they found the remaining employee and corporate defendants liable on other claims, the jury only awarded Northwest $250,000 of the roughly $4 million in compensatory damages sought; the award was joint and several.  However, the jury awarded Northwest $2.8 million in punitive damages—representing an 11.2:1 ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages on a per-judgment basis.

Appellants challenged the punitive damages award as unconstitutional.  Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, courts must consider three guideposts when determining if a punitive damages award comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. …

November 2, 2023

Court Holds Pennsylvania’s RGGI Rule Unconstitutional

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

Environmental Alert

(by Kevin Garber and Jessica Deyoe)

On November 1, 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s CO2 Budget Trading Program Regulation is an unconstitutional tax, declared the rule to be void, and enjoined DEP from enforcing it. See Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC et al v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (No. 247 M.D. 2022). The Regulation would have linked Pennsylvania’s cap-and-trade program to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is the regional, market-based cap-and-trade program designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric power generators with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater that send more than 10 percent of their annual gross generation to the electric grid.

The Court reaffirmed its earlier July 8, 2022 opinion in which it preliminarily enjoined the Regulation as an unconstitutional tax. In this November 1 decision on the merits, the Court held that the Regulation constitutes a tax imposed by DEP in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Undisputed facts of record established that only 6 percent of RGGI auction proceeds are necessary to cover the cost of administering the program and that the annual revenue anticipated from RGGI would be three times greater than the total amount allocated to DEP from the General Fund in a single year. The Court found that the money to be generated by Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI would be “grossly disproportionate” to the costs of overseeing participation in the program and DEP’s annual needs. Relying on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in Flynn v. Horst, 51 A.2d 54, 60 (Pa. 1947), which found that

[n]o principle is more firmly established in the law of Pennsylvania than the principle that a revenue tax cannot be constitutionally imposed upon a business under the guise of a police regulation, and that if the amount of a ‘license fee’ is grossly disproportionate to the sum required to pay the cost of the due regulation of the business the ‘license fee’ act will be struck down,

the Commonwealth Court concluded that Pennsylvania’s participation in RGGI “may only be achieved through legislation duly enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and not merely through the Rulemaking promulgated by DEP and EQB. …

November 2, 2023

Babst Calland Ranked in 2024 Best Law Firms®

Pittsburgh, PA, Charleston, WV and Washington, DC

Babst Calland has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®, ranked by Best Lawyers®, nationally in 8 practice areas and regionally in 31 practice areas:

  • National Tier 1
    • Environmental Law
    • Litigation – Environmental
  • National Tier 2
    • Land Use & Zoning Law
    • Natural Resources Law
    • Oil & Gas Law
  • National Tier 3
    • Energy Law
    • Litigation – Construction
    • Mining Law
  • Regional Tier 1
    • Pittsburgh
      • Bet-the-Company Litigation
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Construction Law
      • Corporate Law
      • Energy Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Information Technology Law
      • Land Use & Zoning Law
      • Litigation – Construction
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Litigation – Land Use & Zoning
      • Municipal Law
      • Natural Resources Law
      • Water Law
    • Charleston-WV
      • Commercial Litigation
      • Energy Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Oil & Gas Law
  • Regional Tier 2
    • Pittsburgh
      • Admiralty & Maritime Law
      • Labor Law – Management
    • Charleston-WV
      • Mining Law
      • Natural Resources Law
    • Washington, D.C.
      • Energy Law
      • Environmental Law
      • Litigation – Environmental
      • Oil & Gas Law
  • Regional Tier 3
    • Pittsburgh
      • Mergers &

    • …

November 1, 2023

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds RGGI Rule Unconstitutional

Pittsburgh, PA and Washington, DC

The Foundation Mineral and Energy Law Newsletter

Pennsylvania – Mining

(Joseph K. Reinhart, Sean M. McGovern, Gina F. Buchman and Christina M. Puhnaty)

On November 1, 2023, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (PADEP) CO2 Budget Trading Program Regulation (RGGI Rule) is an unconstitutional tax, declared the rule to be void, and enjoined PADEP from enforcing it. See Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. PADEP, No. 247 M.D. 2022, 2023 WL 7171547 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Nov. 1, 2023).

After a lengthy rulemaking process, the RGGI Rule was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. See 52 Pa. Bull. 2471 (Apr. 23, 2022). The RGGI Rule would have linked Pennsylvania’s cap-and-trade program to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is the regional, market-based cap-and-trade program designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-fired electric power generators with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater that send more than 10% of their annual gross generation to the electric grid.

Two days after the RGGI Rule was published, a group of stakeholders filed a petition for review of the rule and an application for preliminary injunction in the commonwealth court. The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction on May 10 and 11, 2022, and in a July 8, 2022, opinion, the court preliminarily enjoined the regulation as an unconstitutional tax.

In its November 1 decision on the merits, the court reaffirmed its earlier July 8, 2022, opinion, holding that the RGGI Rule constitutes a tax imposed by PADEP in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. …

November 1, 2023

Babst Calland Opens Harrisburg Office

Harrisburg, PA

Babst Calland today announced the opening of its office in Harrisburg, Pa., and the addition of two experienced litigation attorneys, Michael Libuser and Stefanie Pitcavage Mekilo.

Led by Shareholder Casey Alan Coyle, who joined the firm in August 2022, the Harrisburg office provides legal counsel for local, regional, and national businesses, industry sectors, and trade associations with focused practices in litigation, energy and natural resources, environmental, and legislative and regulatory affairs, among others.

The Harrisburg team of attorneys offers deep litigation experience in matters pending before state and federal appellate courts, with a particular emphasis on appeals before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They also represent clients in disputes pending before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and state trial courts throughout Central Pennsylvania and matters brought before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court as part of its original jurisdiction.

“It is an exciting time for Michael and Stefanie to join Babst Calland and open a new office in Harrisburg,” said Mr. Coyle. “The Harrisburg office is uniquely poised to offer its clients the best of both worlds—pairing the service and pricing of a litigation boutique with the deep-bench expertise and resources of a law firm with more than 35 years of experience serving clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to small and mid-sized businesses nationwide.”

Mr. Libuser represents clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts, with a particular emphasis on cases before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Yvette Kane, Senior United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he drafted opinions for the Third and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals and handled a wide range of district court matters involving complex civil litigation, commercial contracts, administrative law, trade secrets, and various statutory claims. …

October 31, 2023

A Quick Lesson on Responding to (and Avoiding) Inadvertent Document Productions

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Joseph Schaeffer)

Whether attorneys have encountered an inadvertently produced privileged document in their own practice, it is a common enough occurrence that the procedure is well established: Suspend further review, sequester the document, and notify opposing counsel. What is not well-established is what attorneys should do when they encounter inadvertently produced non-privileged documents. A New York trial court recently dealt with this situation in a case of first impression.

In Pursuit Credit Special Opportunity Fund, L.P. v. Krunchcash, LLC et al., No. 615070/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 4, 2023), the plaintiff’s financial consultant had responded to a subpoena from the defendants by producing multiple emails with a Dropbox link in the message body. As the defendants discovered early in their review, the Dropbox link not only was “live,” it provided access to a bevy of the plaintiff’s sensitive internal files—including folders named “Legal,” “Tax,” and “Financial.” Rather than immediately notify plaintiff’s counsel, though, the defendants reviewed the Dropbox (with the exception of the “Legal” folder) and sent the plaintiff a letter about a week later that referenced the internal documents as part of a demand for voluntary dismissal of the litigation. The plaintiff responded by moving the trial court to order the defendants to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for accessing the Dropbox files.

The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and entered a sanction against the defendants of nearly $156,000, representing the plaintiff’s costs in bringing the motion. Though acknowledging the absence of directly applicable authority, the trial court found guidance in Rule 4.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. …

October 31, 2023

Quick Tips for Selecting an Expert Witness

Pittsburgh, PA

Pretrial Practice & Discovery

American Bar Association Litigation Section

(by Andy DeGory)

The process of researching and identifying an expert witness can be a daunting task in a complex commercial litigation setting. However, securing the appropriate expert tailored to your needs can be a critical component of a successful litigation strategy. While there is no exact formula for expert witness selection, the following pointers can help lead your team towards the right witness and a favorable outcome:

  • Utilize your colleagues and network. When starting your search for an expert witness, polling your colleagues and other connections in the legal field can instantly provide you with multiple favorable candidates. Furthermore, your network may be able to significantly narrow your search down to a few options that will fit the needs of your case. This option is also particularly helpful for lesser-experienced attorneys who might be starting an expert search for the very first time.
  • Google is your friend. Litigation attorneys may joke about relying on Google for legal research, however, an expert-witness search is actually an appropriate opportunity to fire up the search engine. Google (or another search engine) allows you to cast a wide net to build your list of expert candidates prior to a more formal vetting of your options.
  • Vet your candidates with Westlaw or Lexis. Once you have narrowed your search down to your favorite expert candidates, Westlaw and Lexis provide excellent tools for vetting your candidates’ background and history serving as an expert witness. In particular, these legal databases allow you to examine past cases in which the candidate has provided expert testimony, prior expert reports submitted in those cases, deposition transcripts (if available), and any motions in limine/to exclude the candidate’s testimony.

    • …

Top