courtYesterday, March 28, 2017, Missouri Governor, Eric Greitens, signed House Bill 153. This Bill amends parts of section 490.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo), which governs testimony of expert witness.

With the enactment of the new standards under 490.065(2), Missouri’s approach to expert testimony now aligns with that of the Federal Courts. The requirements as set out Subsection Two are identical to those of Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 and 705, which are the basis for the principles of the Daubert Standard as set out by the United States Supreme Court. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). This consistency between Missouri and Federal Court standards is significant because it should make it easier to exclude unscientific “junk science.”


Continue Reading Missouri Governor Signs Bill; State’s Approach to Expert Testimony Now Aligns with that of the Federal Courts

MissouriThe Supreme Court of Missouri recently issued an important decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Dolan, holding that Missouri did not have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation registered to do business in Missouri that was conducting “substantial and continuous” business in Missouri, where an alleged injury to a resident of another state arose due to conduct outside of Missouri.

Continue Reading Missouri Supreme Court Limits Personal Jurisdiction

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), which amended the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to create a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation. lockThe DTSA governs misappropriations occurring after the effective date of May 11, 2016.

Although trade secret theft has been a federal crime since 1996, civil claims for trade secret misappropriation were almost always governed by state law. A corporation unable to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction was thus limited to state court. Although every state but two has adopted a variation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, these statutory variations and differing court interpretations created uncertainty in the application of trade secret law, an area of growing importance for companies increasingly dependent on electronic security.


Continue Reading Husch Blackwell Files One of First Lawsuits Brought Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA)

ipadI recently conducted a deposition from my office, while opposing counsel (and a court reporter) were at the opposing counsel’s offices across town, and our witness was at a third location in Louisiana – all via iPad!

We used the VidyoMobile app, which brings high-quality video conferencing to popular devices such as your iPad or

Toxic Tort Monitor

May 2, 2016
New Developments
Northern District of Illinois Decision on Take-Home Exposure Liability has Limited Application
By Lindsay McClure-Hartman

The Northern District of Illinois in Neumann v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, No. 15-C-10507, 2016 WL 930662 (N.D. Ill. March 10, 2016), recently granted a motion to dismiss on the basis that a product

As many trial attorneys will tell you, the most crucial phase in many trials is jury selection. While its significance is known, attorneys are often left with minimal information gathered through juror questionnaires or voir dire from which they are forced to analyze cause challenges and make strike decisions.  However, the growth of social media over the past decade has enabled lawyers to gather additional information about the interests, activities and proclivities of veniremen that allows counsel to make more informed decisions during the jury selection process.

Social Media Jury

According to Pew Research Center, 74% of online adults use social media sites. The numbers are consistent across gender, education and income levels.  A trial attorney, therefore, has the ability to discover information about three out of every four prospective jurors on the Internet.


Continue Reading Social Media and Jury Selection

Toxic Tort Monitor

April 1, 2016
New Developments
Second Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Asbestos Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
By David Dean

In February 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld dismissal of an out-of-state corporate defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction in an asbestos case, Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No.

keyboard_iStock_000003183204Small-computerkeyboardThis past May marked the three-year anniversary (Cheers!) of Judge Andrew Peck’s
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe et al, S.D. New York, 11-1279, 2-24-2012
opinion, widely cited as the first case ruling to endorse the use of predictive coding or “technology-assisted review” (TAR) as a discovery tool.

TAR is the process of training a computer system to make decisions about the responsiveness of a document that would otherwise be reviewed and coded by a manual reviewer. With TAR, human effort is not eliminated, but rather used throughout the review process to train the system on what is responsive and what is not. The documents used to train the system are called the “training set” or “seed set.”   Once the system is trained, the computer reviews and codes the documents.


Continue Reading Show me yours and I’ll show you mine — The importance of TAR transparency