Michael Hoenig

August 11, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig analyzes a recent decision that demonstrates how painstaking the "gatekeeping" task of a judge is when an expert, even one well qualified in the scientific field, expresses opinions and uses methods that depart from accepted principles and methodology recognized by the relevant scientific community.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

July 14, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig writes: Assume heated, contentious litigation ensues between opposing counsel. During a squabble over discovery, Attorney A, in an e-mail, calls her adversary a rather common, vulgar profanity that describes a portion of the anatomy. She also uses the crude words "sh--" and "fu--" in an admonition to him not to build a record for filing some unmeritorious motion, and that she has "everything taped" so that the recordings will be used to blunt such a tactic. Does such conduct justify court intervention?

By Michael Hoenig

10 minute read

June 09, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig writes: A party's challenge is not always to prove that the opponent expert is lying. An expert can testify impressively and his qualifications may be excellent. He may even believe what he is saying. But if he relies upon and spouts what is essentially "junk science," extracted from someone else's writing, the testimony is junky nonetheless.

By Michael Hoenig

10 minute read

May 12, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig writes that sooner or later, much of expert testimony boils down to what experts have read or learned or confirmed from writings, an enhancement of their expertise that is beneficial when such writings are trustworthy and accurate. But, as the famous song goes, "it ain't necessarily so."

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

April 14, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: Just two weeks ago, the New York Court of Appeals issued its key decision in 'Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty,' yet again offering detailed guidance to bench and bar on a variety of expert reliability issues. Although the court's approach generally tracks 'Parker v. Mobil Oil,' there are additional lessons of note.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

March 10, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in 'Walden v. Fiore' has potential to upset some apple carts, to disturb existing or smug notions of in personam jurisdiction and to revitalize jurisdictional challenges by foreign defendants sued in a state where they had no or little direct activity.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

February 10, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews a recent ruling which consolidated and decided motions to seal the settlement agreements reached in two separate lawsuits, revealing potential traps for the unwary who seek confidentiality of their settlements, and a second decision affirming harsh spoliation penalties against a defendant who failed to preserve a treadmill used by a plaintiff who was injured.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

December 09, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Herzfeld & Rubin member Michael Hoenig writes that the Supreme Court's grant-vacate-remand orders in two consumer class action suits seemed to be telling the Sixth and Seventh circuits that those courts needed to reconsider their approaches to class certification because their rulings presented grave "predominance" issues, but each circuit panel rejected the Supreme Court's "hint."

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

November 20, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Complex Litigation column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, surveys cases that illustrate that robust judicial gatekeeping of experts ensues and that counsel on both sides need to exercise diligence in structuring or challenging the reliability of expert testimony and complying with rules on expert disclosure.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

December 12, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, analyzes a recent decisions where the court found that the data upon which the plaintiff's experts relied was insufficient to support their novel theory of medical causation, "rendering that theory speculative."

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read