Quantcast

Tag Archives: U.S. District Court – Western District

VFOIA closed-door discussion not automatically privileged (access required)

Although the Virginia Freedom of Information Act allows closed-door meetings to discuss confidential employment matters, there is no privilege that would automatically protect those discussions from discovery in federal court litigation. Background This matter comes before the court on defendant ...

Read More »

Experience with different gunpowder did not disqualify expert (access required)

Despite the fact that the defendant’s expert had more experience with a different gunpowder than the one used in this case, the expert was allowed to offer his opinion regarding the cause of the firearm explosion because his testimony offered ...

Read More »

Lacking special expertise, expert could opine on design defect (access required)

A metallurgical engineering expert’s lack of specific expertise in firearms did not preclude his testimony that the defendant’s choice of steel caused the plaintiff’s firearm to malfunction because any objections to the expert’s conclusions could be challenged on cross-examination. Background ...

Read More »

Employee’s remark shows likely actual notice of spill (access required)

Where the plaintiff and her boyfriend both testified an employee of the defendant stated a spill should have been cleaned up, a reasonable juror could conclude that statement demonstrated the defendant’s actual notice of the spill. Background On or about ...

Read More »

Jury may hear about decedent’s pain and suffering (access required)

A jury is poised to hear potentially powerful evidence about the decedent’s death and her minor children’s observation of that scene. Such testimony, a court ruled, may enable the jury to estimate the mental anguish of the beneficiaries. Background Defendants ...

Read More »

Bankrupt was not ‘nominal’ for jurisdiction purposes (access required)

Although an individual defendant filed for bankruptcy protection after allegedly striking the plaintiff with his car and his insurance carrier interpled all relevant proceeds into the state court, he was not a “nominal” party for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and ...

Read More »