Edward M Spiro

June 21, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: Although invocation of the common interest doctrine is seldom challenged through litigation in the Southern District, with only a handful of written decisions on the subject each year, its contours are not as well-defined as many lawyers assume. Two recent decisions narrowly construing the doctrine underscore the importance of understanding the common interest doctrine's requirements.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

27 minute read

April 19, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: A plaintiff seeking to serve an individual or organizational defendant located overseas can face substantial, sometimes insurmountable logistical challenges. Several recent decisions have permitted plaintiffs frustrated by elusive defendants or uncooperative foreign governments to serve defendants through email under FRCP 4(f)(3), providing a modern-day solution to an age-old problem.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

22 minute read

February 17, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul discuss a number of recent decisions that illustrate the sea change wrought by 'Daimler v. Bauman' on New York's personal jurisdiction jurisprudence.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

12 minute read

December 15, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: Advice of counsel can provide an affirmative defense where intent is an element of the offense or claim. However, invoking that defense puts "at issue" privileged communications, requiring waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and where—as in the case of a corporate employee—the privilege is held and controlled by an entity other than the defendant, the privilege-holder may well have a different risk/benefit calculus.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

11 minute read

December 14, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: Advice of counsel can provide an affirmative defense where intent is an element of the offense or claim. However, invoking that defense puts "at issue" privileged communications, requiring waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and where—as in the case of a corporate employee—the privilege is held and controlled by an entity other than the defendant, the privilege-holder may well have a different risk/benefit calculus.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

11 minute read

October 20, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write that absent congressional action, significant amendments to the FRCP will take effect on Dec. 1, aimed at improving early and active judicial case management, enhancing the means of keeping discovery proportional to the action, and encouraging increased cooperation among the parties.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

9 minute read

August 18, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul analyze a decision by Judge Colleen McMahon demonstrating that even when a business holds all the cards in drafting an arbitration agreement with its customers, it can over-play that hand.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

10 minute read

August 17, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul analyze a decision by Judge Colleen McMahon demonstrating that even when a business holds all the cards in drafting an arbitration agreement with its customers, it can over-play that hand.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

10 minute read

June 16, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: In recent weeks, Judges J. Paul Oetken and Paul A. Engelmayer each issued decisions addressing different ethical dimensions of contact between attorneys and witnesses, in one case finding that the proposed contact was impermissible, and in the other finding that counsel's lack of witness contact was problematic.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

11 minute read

June 15, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: In recent weeks, Judges J. Paul Oetken and Paul A. Engelmayer each issued decisions addressing different ethical dimensions of contact between attorneys and witnesses, in one case finding that the proposed contact was impermissible, and in the other finding that counsel's lack of witness contact was problematic.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

11 minute read