Judith L Mogul

December 03, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, write that an attorney who is also a potential witness in a litigation will not necessarily be disqualified under the advocate-witness rule. If the attorney is not a vital witness on an important fact, they say, he or she may continue to play a substantial role in the litigation by ensuring that other attorneys will serve as trial counsel.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read

April 19, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, write: A recent decision, JW Oilfield Equip., LLC v. Commerzbank AG, illustrates why some have described New York as a "mecca" for judgment creditors and why the Southern District of New York is a favorable forum for registering federal judgments from other districts.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

16 minute read

June 05, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro, a principal of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, and Judith L. Mogul, counsel to the firm, write that demands for punitive damages raise numerous procedural issues from the pleading and motion stages, through discovery and into trial. They examine some of those procedural questions in the context of recent decisions.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

14 minute read

June 04, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, analyze a trio of recent Southern District cases, all arising in the context of copyright infringement claims, that illustrate some of the considerations that influence whether a case will be transferred to another jurisdiction, and the importance of presenting the detailed and concrete facts supporting a motion to transfer.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read

February 05, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, write that a recent ruling marks a day of reckoning for those civil litigators who thought they could avoid learning about electronic discovery. While hardly the sexiest aspect of 21st century litigation, they say that the time has run out for those who had hoped never to have to understand what "metadata" is, let alone to explain why they are entitled to obtain it or avoid its production.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read

October 01, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, say the preliminary injunction is a potent weapon that courts are hesitant to unleash against former employees absent clear evidence that the new employment poses a real risk that confidential information will be divulged. The existence of a written non-compete agreement can be an important factor, however, they caution that an employer seeking a preliminary injunction must also come armed with concrete evidence of the harm it claims it will suffer in the absence of an injunction.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read

December 01, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In their Southern District Civil Practice Roundup, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer principals Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul discuss the recent changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that provide a significant zone of work product protection for attorney-expert communications which has not existed since 1993 and recognize, for the first time, the importance of providing limited expert discovery from fact witnesses who may also give expert testimony.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

14 minute read

October 02, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, analyze recent cases which indicate that Southern District judges have heeded the Second Circuit's directive to engage in a more probing, robust analysis of the requirements for certifying a class under Rule 23. It is likely that at least in the short run, these rulings will result in more, rather than less litigation as class-action participants engage in a legal tug of war to pull their cases over the dividing line between cases that turn on individualized questions and those where classwide determinations will predominate. In the long run, this heightened supervision of class litigation may result in greater efficiencies for both sides of the class action divide.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read

April 02, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals at Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, ask: Just how far does the work product doctrine go in shielding an attorney's thought processes from discovery in federal litigation? Courts, they say, have recognized an aspect of the work product doctrine that goes beyond protecting documents which were themselves prepared in contemplation of litigation, to protect, in some instances, documents from other sources that have been selected and compiled by the attorney in such a way as to reflect the attorney's litigation strategy.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

14 minute read

August 06, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul, principals of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, write that courts do not enter protective orders lightly, and the party seeking a judicially imposed protective order should take the time to support its application with particularized arguments supporting its assertion of good cause.

By Edward M. Spiro and Judith L. Mogul

13 minute read