Understanding the concept of hearsay and its application to ESI evidence is crucial for practitioners to navigate the complexities of evidentiary rules effectively.
In the March 21, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “When Hearsay Meets ESI: Navigating Evidence Rules in the Digital Age.” Continue reading ›
Antitrust claims can successfully navigate last decade’s reforms. As market concentration intensifies, especially in the technology sector, it is crucial for class counsel to adequately represent plaintiffs and bring antitrust class actions to safeguard their rights.
In the January 23, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Collective David Against Corporate Goliaths: Named Plaintiffs’ Standing in Antitrust Class Actions.” Continue reading ›
Considering the difficulties for private plaintiffs to pursue and prevail on antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, Section 2, Epic’s win against Google carries significant consequences for platform operators’ liability under antitrust laws.
In the January 2, 2024 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “An Antitrust Storm Brewing in the Walled Gardens: Dissecting the Antitrust Claims in ‘Epic v. Google’.” Continue reading ›
Litigators preparing to qualify or challenge an expert witness must be ready to navigate several obstacles in admitting or excluding expert testimony. With the new amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 coming into effect, litigators should take note of changes and incorporate them into their decision-making regarding expert testimony.
In the November 22, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Battle of the Experts (Standards): ‘Frye,’ ‘Daubert’ and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.” Continue reading ›
Rule 106 is more than just an obscure procedural rule governing the timing of the introduction of statements. It is tied to the fundamental objective of the adversary system, enabling parties to deliver robust arguments that are forceful yet within the bounds of fairness.
In the November 2, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote, “Use Rule 106 to Your Advantage: Introducing the Rest of the Story in Real Time”
Because jurisdictions vary widely in their treatment of deposition break conferences, practitioners should not assume that conversations with clients during deposition breaks will be covered by attorney-client privilege.
In the October 12, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Jurisdiction Matters: Things to Consider Before Consulting With Clients During Depositions“. Continue reading ›
Although Rule 408 does preclude some settlement evidence from being admitted in litigation, it is a mistake, and potentially a dangerous one, to believe that any documents or communications bearing the label of “For Settlement Purposes Only” will necessarily fall within the scope of Rule 408. Lawyers must have a clear understanding of the limitations to Rule 408’s protection of settlement evidence.
In the August 31, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward Kang wrote “Not a Blanket Protection: Understanding Limits of Protections for Settlement Evidence“. Continue reading ›
The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin affirming the Ninth Circuit’s holding and providing RICO plaintiffs with a powerful tool against debtors employing fraudulent tactics to avoid payment.
In the July 20, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang wrote “Sophisticated Schemers Beware: Civil RICO Expands Creditors’ Arsenal—Part II.” Continue reading ›
Courts will likely be grappling with questions regarding cryptocurrency for years to come—with the results from the suits against Binance and Coinbase potentially serving as guiding precedent in answering those questions.
In the July 6, 2023 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky co-authored, “Emerging ‘Securities’ Litigation in Cryptocurrency.” Continue reading ›
The statute does not define the term “resulting from,” which has led to differing interpretations of the causation standard required for an AKS violation to be considered a false claim under the FCA. The divergence of views among the circuit courts has created challenges for relators in proving causation. This column is part two of our earlier column relating to AKS and the causation standard.
In the June 15, 2023 edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Edward T. Kang and Kandis L. Kovalsky wrote “Fighting Fraud in Health Care Through the False Claims Act in the Third Circuit, Part 2“ Continue reading ›
Kang Haggerty News