Today’s case, Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC (7th Cir. 2012) is a little tricky, procedurally. Three plaintiffs filed an FLSA class action (and collective action) against DirectSat USA, LLC. The Northern District of Illinois originally certified a class, but then decertified it, at which point the plaintiffs each settled on an individual basis.
Now, here’s
One of the tough things about defending class actions is the fact that discovery is asymmetrical. Some plaintiffs use the fact that corporate defendants generate huge numbers of documents to inflict significant costs on the defense by serving large numbers of marginal relevance to any class claims.
So, when plaintiffs withhold actually relevant information
I’ve written before about the uses to which defense counsel can put a well-taken named plaintiff deposition. And, once again, an opinion has come along that showcases just how important the named plaintiff deposition is as a weapon to defeat class certification.
The case, Burns v. Bayer Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33183 (S.D.
As you may know, most bloggers have some kind of service that provides a statistical analysis of their site. In addition to telling us how many of you visit, and what you read, and whether you come back, these services also tell us what searches bring (some of) you here. And, over the last year
Defendants face a dilemma when dealing with absent class members. On the one hand, they often have valuable information about a case, either as sources for variations that would defeat certification or as trial witnesses. On the other hand, plaintiffs will vigorously oppose any contact with absent class members, even if it is for
I’ve talked before about the problem of circularity in securities class actions. Briefly put:
[A] securities class action takes money from the firm, and pays it to the shareholders, minus costs and attorneys’ fees. The hitch is that the firm is owned by the shareholders, which means that the attorneys have just taken money
In the last few years, statutory non-disclosure have become more common among class-action filings. They allow the plaintiffs to assert fraud-like claims that can arouse public (or judicial) sympathy, without necessarily having to worry about proving individualized reliance the way they would if they had alleged a common-law fraud claim.
A recent case, Noel v.
The confidential witness is the bane of the securities defendant’s existence. While there may be some legitimate reasons to keep a witness confidential, the words "Confidential Witness #1" can also hide problems with the plaintiffs’ case, like sloppy research or outright misrepresentation.
How do we know this is the case? Well, many defendants
King Architectural Metals manufactured metal building components, which it needed to sell. It made the mistake of faxing an advertisement to CE Design. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. CE Design was a small, Chicago-area civil engineering firm, and it had checked a box in the Blue Book of Building and
Depositions are one of the most important parts of class discovery. (And for many lawyers, they’re also the most fun.) Since so few class actions go to trial, a deposition of a named plaintiff is when the defense lawyer finally gets to act like a lawyer on TV, confronting the named plaintiff with evidence