Judith L Mogul

April 17, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, write: Almost 25 years after the Supreme Court's decision in 'Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals', recent cases in the Southern District of New York continue to demonstrate the wide latitude that the Daubert standard affords to judges ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony, even on subjects previously accepted as valid grounds for expert opinion.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

21 minute read

February 17, 2017 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul write: Following the U.S. Supreme Court's May 2016 decision in 'Spokeo v. Robins', courts have been re-examining whether plaintiffs seeking statutory damages, particularly under various consumer protection laws, have Article III standing to pursue their claims. With guidance from the Second Circuit's post-'Spokeo' decision in 'Strubel v. Comenity Bank', courts in the Southern District of New York are beginning to flesh out the new approach to standing in such cases.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

19 minute read

December 21, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup column, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul discuss a pair of recent cases that shed light on the parameters of the litigation privilege, and the narrow exceptions that litigants have been able to exploit. As they note, "when civil litigation turns ugly, it sometimes devolves into allegations of defamation not just between the parties, but against their lawyers as well. In light of the broad privilege cloaking statements made in the litigation process, the incidence of defamation allegations against lawyers is surprising."

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

15 minute read

October 17, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Southern District Civil Practice Roundup columnists Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul discuss a decision earlier this year by Southern District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ordering disclosure of litigation-related communications with a public relations firm. That decision surveys the relevant case law and underscores both the substantive and procedural requirements for maximizing the chances that such communications will not be delivered into the hands of a litigation adversary.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

17 minute read

August 15, 2016 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul discuss two recent decisions, one which disqualified a small firm, notwithstanding its immediate creation of a substantial ethical wall when a lawyer with a conflict joined the firm, and another that denied a motion to disqualify where a large firm concurrently represented both sides of a litigation.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

55 minute read

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