Stephen J Finley

March 05, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

Pennsylvania courts prohibit the introduction of negligence concepts in the trial of a strict-liability products case.

By Stephen J. Imbriglia and Stephen J. Finley Jr.

8 minute read

September 18, 2009 | The Legal Intelligencer

In a June 16 per curiam opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that it had improvidently granted an appeal in the matter Bugosh v. I.U. North America Inc.

By Stephen J. Finley Jr.

5 minute read

December 07, 2011 | New Jersey Law Journal

Levine, Mensing and pre-emption of failure-to-warn claims brought under state law.

By Michelle M. Bufano and Stephen J. Finley Jr.

6 minute read

March 14, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

A little more than a year ago, using now well-known language, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that the attorney-client privilege is a "two-way street." In Gillard v. AIG Insurance Co. , the court held that the protections of the attorney-client privilege apply both to communications from an attorney to the client, as well as to communications from the client to the attorney.

By Madeline M. Sherry and Stephen J. Finley Jr.

9 minute read

January 17, 2012 | The Legal Intelligencer

In Pennsylvania's state courts, practitioners have long juggled the obligation to provide detailed, comprehensive expert reports in support of their case with their obligation to preserve the protection afforded by the attorney work-product privilege.

By Madeline M. Sherry and Stephen J. Finley Jr.

10 minute read

January 29, 2013 | The Legal Intelligencer

The question of e-discovery-related cost-shifting typically arises in two settings: (1) when a party seeks to shift the cost of electronically stored information production during litigation to the requesting party pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B); and (2) when a prevailing party seeks to recover its costs after judgment has been entered in its favor pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d). This article will discuss both scenarios as they have been addressed in two recent cases — Boeynaems v. LA Fitness Int'l, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115272 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 16, 2012), a decision involving cost-shifting prior to class action certification, and Race Tires America v. Hoosier Racing Tire, 674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed applications to recover e-discovery-related costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920.

By Scott J. Etish and Stephen J. Finley

10 minute read