Dec. 14, 2021
Good morning. A Manhattan federal judge is offering a fuller perspective defending her decision at a recent trial to strike unvaccinated jurors for cause, a flashpoint as more courts return to in-person trials. Plus: a Texas judge today will hear arguments on how quickly the FDA must produce a trove of documents it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, and the U.S. Supreme Court spurned two challenges to a New York vaccination mandate for certain healthcare workers. It’s Tuesday, and we’re just getting started. Let’s go!
REUTERS/Sean Krajacic State and federal judges have grappled for months now over tension between vaccination requirements and would-be jurors. In June, a Cleveland federal judge reversed himself and said he would not automatically disqualify unvaccinated jurors in an opioids case. Now, in New York, U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni is providing the context behind her recent decision to strike unvaccinated potential jurors for cause.
In an 11-page ruling on Friday, Caproni, who oversaw a trial last month between law firm King & Spalding and one of its former associates, said she was justified in excluding from the jury a woman who was not vaccinated against COVID-19, David Thomas reports. Allowing an unvaccinated person to serve on the jury could have disrupted the trial, Caproni said. An unvaccinated juror could contract COVID-19 and spread it to other jurors, some of whom “may therefore understandably feel unsafe or uncomfortable serving on a jury with unvaccinated individuals,” the judge wrote.
After U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, dismissed a handful of unvaccinated jurors during selection for the Elizabeth Holmes trial in September, court observers raised questions about potential unfairness and some legal experts predicted the conflict to flourish as more courts planned to resume in-person trials.
Caproni pointed to the dismissal of unvaccinated jurors in the Holmes trial to make her point. She concluded that unvaccinated prospective jurors “are not a distinctive group identifiable” by a single characteristic. Excluding unvaccinated persons, Caproni wrote, “does not violate the statutory requirement that civil juries comprise a cross-section of the community.”
Read more about the judge’s opinion on vaccination and jurors.
Industry buzz
Number of the day: REUTERS/Saul Loeb That’s how much USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee will pay as part of a settlement with hundreds of female gymnasts who were sexually abused by Larry Nassar, the national team’s former doctor. The settlement requires USA Gymnastics and the Olympic Committee to designate some of their board seats to survivors and to implement other new policies aimed at protecting athletes from future abuse, according to attorney Michelle Simpson Tuegel of the Simpson Tuegel Law Firm, who represents more than two dozen Nassar survivors. Read more about the deal.
Columnist spotlight Judge’s stock portfolio did not taint class rulings: tuna plaintiffs to 9th Circuit. A closely watched class action appeal in which the en banc 9th Circuit was poised to address whether classes can be certified if they contain uninjured class members took an unexpected swerve last month when StarKist said the trial court rulings under review should be tossed because the judge’s family owned shares in public companies that were part of the price-fixing MDL. Alison Frankel reports on class counsel’s new response. Plaintiffs’ lawyers told the 9th Circuit that the judge’s family didn’t own shares in any class member when she issued her class certification rulings – and that any injustice in this case would come from allowing StarKist to delay a reckoning on questions that have bedeviled class action lawyers and judges.
We'll all be dead before FDA releases full COVID vaccine record, plaintiffs say. A federal judge in Texas is hearing arguments today on how quickly the FDA must produce the massive trove of documents it relied on to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. Jenna Greene takes a look at a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by a group of scientists who want all the information made public in 108 days – the same amount of time it took the FDA to greenlight the jab. But under the agency’s proposed timeline, it could take up to 76 years to reveal the full record. Check out other recent pieces from all our columnists: Alison Frankel, Jenna Greene and Hassan Kanu.
REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni "OMFGGGG I PASSED THE BABY BAR EXAM!!!!"
Coming up today
In the courts
Industry moves
Lawyer speak: Preparing for new merger remedy practices at the FTC The Federal Trade Commission’s new policy requiring prior approval for deals is likely to have major implications for businesses pursuing a roll-up strategy within a specific industry, write Mike Cowie and James Fishkin of Dechert. Read more about how the FTC has been enforcing the policy and what it could mean for businesses hoping to snap up several of their peers.
Want more legal news?
Contact and follow us
Diana Novak Jones diana.jones2@thomsonreuters.com
Mike Scarcella mike.scarcella@thomsonreuters.com
Thanks for reading The Daily Docket. Invite friends to subscribe here.
Contact us with feedback.
Copyright © 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved. 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123
Want to change how you receive these emails? |