Kang Haggerty NewsPhiladelphia Business Journal
Articles Posted in Publications
Shareholders, not the Corporation, Holds Attorney-Client Privilege for Communications Between the Shareholders and Counsel
On August 7, 2014, the Western District of Pennsylvania’s Judge Maurice B. Cohill, Jr. entered an order preliminary denying plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena on counsel. In the case of Gary Miller Imports, Inc. v. Carter Dolittle, et al., plaintiff sought to compel the law firm of Macdonad Illig Jones & Britton, LLP to produce eight documents they felt did not fall under attorney-client privilege. Continue reading ›
Pennsylvania Adopts Amendment Creating Bright-Line Rule on Attorney-Expert Communications during Discovery
Continuing off our earlier blog post that had raised questions regarding attorney-expert communications in Barrick, et al. v. Holy Spirit Hospital, et al. (read here!), on July 10, 2014 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made official a rule change barring attorney-expert communications during discovery. Following its decision in Barrick, the Supreme Court approved an amendment to the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5 concerning attorney-expert communication during discovery. This amendment to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure created a bright-line rule, and creates a difficult arena for attorneys to maneuver during the discovery process.
Third Circuit Adopts Liberal Notice Pleading Standard for False Claims Act Cases
Refusing to adopt the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court for New Jersey’s order, which held that Plaintiff Foglia failed to meet the pleading requirements under Rule 9(b) for pleading a false claims act case. U.S. ex rel. Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 2014 WL 2535339 (3d Cir. June 6, 2014). In contrast to the District Court, the Third Circuit agreed to a more liberal standard for pleading cases under the federal False Claims Act and concluded that Foglia’s factually false claim against Renal proved sufficient to satisfy Rule 9(b). The circuits are split over whether a whistleblower must allege specific examples of false claims to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the Third Circuit held that the whistleblower need not provide such specific examples.