VOL. 8 NO. 3 FALL 2015
THE 2015 AMENDMENTS
TO THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
What You Need To Know
25
15
5
2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: What You Need To Know
Alabama No Longer an Outlier State:
Legislature Says “No” To Innovator Liability
Legal Process Management:
A Value-Driven Approach
DEAR CLIENT
Coming to a court near you (and soon): In our rst article, “The 2015
Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What You Need to Know,”
we highlight upcoming changes that will impact discovery practice and
document production, including preservation of electronic information. The
new rules will apply to all federal cases, including those currently pending,
so we’ve taken this opportunity to emphasize some features that may affect
your litigation – present and future.
Our next article is a sequel with a happy (at least happier) ending. In “Alabama
No Longer an Outlier State: Legislature Says “No” To Innovator Liability,” we look at
how the Alabama legislature (nally!) nullied that state’s minority position
regarding “innovator liability.” Long-time readers of Pro Te Solutio, and
those following the tortured case law on innovator liability, will recall that
Wyeth, Inc. v. Weeks cast Alabama as one of only three states to allow a brand
manufacturer to be held responsible for damages caused by a generic drug
(which it did not manufacture). The legislative process moved quickly to put
Alabama back in the vast majority of states that prohibit such a recovery.
Third, we offer something a little different in this issue: think of this article as
our indie lm option. In “Legal Process Management: A Value-Driven Approach,”
we provide a birds-eye view of procedures to eliminate or reduce what clients
spend on legal services. Butler Snow is employing these techniques to provide
continued value to our clients with streamlined service.
Finally, we introduce our “New and Noteworthy” section, which will be used
to provide a quick preview of developing trends or interesting cases. In this
edition, we look at two recent opinions: one concerns the “apex doctrine,”
discussing what a plaintiff must establish to depose a high-ranking corporate
executive. We also address a troubling incident of an appellate judge going
outside the record on appeal to conduct independent research regarding
drug dosing that related to an issue on appeal.
As always, we hope that this issue provides information that is both pertinent
to your business and helpful to you. Take a seat and enjoy!
CHRISTY D. JONES
Co-Chair
Litigation
CHARLES F. JOHNSON
Co-Chair
Business and Corporate Healthcare
2
New And Noteworthy 33
© 2015 BUTLER SNOW LLP
2 32
