Comments on Recent Cases: May 2022
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
Court Sanctions Attorney For Interference With Online Deposition
In the past few years, there has been a quickly growing trend in litigation of depositions taking place online instead of in person. This has presented the temptation for at least one lawyer to secretly communicate with a witness while she testifies. I wrote an article for the ABA Litigation Section's Litigation News about a recent federal court decision, strictly enforcing the rules that prevent lawyers from interfering with deposition testimony.
Court Reverses Dismissal When Plaintiff Alleges Defendant Improperly Obtained Release
A party that wants to avoid litigation often seeks a release from someone they foresee suing them. And, generally, the release serves as a complete defense to a lawsuit. But that may not be the case if the release was procured through fraud or duress.
For example, the state appellate court in Manhattan recently considered a case involving a defendant who obtained a release from the plaintiff after a workplace injury. The plaintiff claimed the release was not valid because the defendant lied about what it was, saying it was a mere formality, and relied upon the defendant’s explanation since he did not speak English. The trial court dismissed the case anyway, but the appeals court returned the case to the trial court to see if there were other grounds the defendant could argue for dismissal.
Cases like this illustrate how parties need to take care to ensure their releases are fairly obtained and enforceable.
Court Awards Legal Fees For Breach of Forum Selection Clause
Parties to a contract can agree where to litigate their disputes by including a forum selection clause. But what happens when a plaintiff disregards the clause and starts a lawsuit somewhere else?
This issue arose in a recent decision by the state appellate court in Manhattan. The parties signed a contract, saying any litigation would take place in New York. One party brought a lawsuit in New Jersey, and the court there dismissed it. The other party then sued in New York, seeking reimbursement for the attorney’s fees it spent seeking dismissal of the New Jersey case. The trial court dismissed the case, but the appellate court reversed and held the lawsuit could proceed.
Cases like this illustrate how important forum selection clauses can be and how defendants can recover their legal fees if plaintiffs disregard them.
Appellate Court Limits Scope of Second Trial
After an appeal, litigants that have already had a trial may have to have a second trial. But the second trial may not be a complete do-over; appeals courts sometimes put limits on what litigants can do at the second trial.
This issue arose in a decision by the state appeals court in Albany, New York. In that case, two parties had a dispute about property rights. After the first trial, the appeals court ordered a second trial. One of the parties wanted to raise a new argument at the second trial, but the appeals court held that the litigant could not raise it at the new trial because he could have, but did not at the first one.
Cases like this illustrate how important it is to make and preserve arguments in litigation so they are not waived at later stages.
Court Orders Hospital That Employed Sexual Assaulting Doctor to Disclose Name of Other Victims
Parties in litigation are entitled to a broad amount of information in discovery. A litigant often cannot avoid disclosing information because it is confidential, even in the context of medical documents.
This issue arose recently in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan. A survivor of sexual assault sued the doctor who assaulted her and the hospital where he worked. She demanded the hospital identify other victims of the doctor’s assaults, but the hospital claimed that the doctor-patient privilege and HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) protected that information from disclosure. The court disagreed, holding that it was relevant to the plaintiff’s claims and that the privacy concerning the disclosure could be protected by a confidentiality agreement.
Cases like this illustrate how much information litigants may need to disclose.