Throughout his 20-year career, David Venderbush, has always been at the heart of bet-the-company litigations literally ripped from the headlines. In litigations involving breast implants, asbestos, cell phones, Vioxx, Seroquel, and unintended automobile acceleration, Mr. Venderbush’s work in various virtual law firms has helped reduce eventual client expense to a fraction of initial potential exposure.
As counsel in the Products Liability Group, Mr. Venderbush focuses his practice on trial and appellate work, with particular expertise in legal strategies for managing complex litigation. As a member of national counsel teams in several multidistrict litigations, he has served as national litigation strategist, supervised local counsel and implemented litigation management and expense control programs. Mr. Venderbush has been particularly successful at effectively ending mass tort litigations through the exclusion of expert witness testimony on complex scientific issues under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). He is well known among his peers for his legal analysis and brief-writing abilities.
Mr. Venderbush has participated in several high-profile trials, managing legal issues and trial briefing and has argued to federal and state appellate courts. He is a five-time Jeopardy! champion.
Mr. Venderbush has successfully excluded the testimony of numerous expert witnesses following Rule 702 evidentiary hearings in a variety of contexts:
- Silicone breast implants: (Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Or. 1996); In re Breast Implant Litigation, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Colo. 1998); Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp., 957 F. Supp. 873 (W.D. Tex. 1997)).
- Mobile telephones: (Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Md. 2002), aff'd 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir. 2003)).
- Uranium ore: (Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. Supp. 2d 814 (W.D. Tex. 2005)).
- Pharmaceuticals: (Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010); Haller v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (M.D. Fla. 2009); Scaife v. AstraZeneca LP, 2009 WL 1610575 (Del. Super. Ct. June 9, 2009)).
A trifecta of recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions has decisively transformed Rule 23 class certification from a pleading proceeding to a proof proceeding. The class certification hearing, post-trilogy, will essentially become a bench trial. To oppose plaintiff’s motion for class certification, persuasive legal argument alone may no longer be sufficient. Companies must develop a robust and comprehensive evidentiary record that is both admissible and persuasive. Is your company ready to defeat class certification in the post-trilogy world?
August 1, 2014
The California Supreme Court recently issued a broad class action decision that sounds a lot like the United States Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and this advisory discusses the similarities between the two decisions, including how both decisions reverse certification of employment classes, turn on the rights of defendants to present affirmative defenses, highlight the importance of managing individualized issues, and warn about the limitations of trials using flawed statistical sampling models.
June 24, 2014
Data privacy practices and related class action litigation continue to be super-hot topics that require close attention. Brand damage, governance shakeups and congressional inquiries because of data practices should provide sufficient motivation to stay up-to-the minute in these critical areas. This advisory examines the latest developments in the Hulu litigation involving alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act. While a California federal district court has denied certification of a class of Hulu video service users, it left the door open for future class cases in this emerging area.
June 19, 2014
"Daubert at Class Certification: More Is All There Is," Law360, March 22, 2012.
March 22, 2012
June 17, 2011