This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
As recently noted by a NewYork federal court, Rule 30(b)(6) allows for testimony from someone deposed as both corporate representative and in their individual capacity on topics outside of personal knowledge but within a corporation's collective knowledge — and dual deposition notices create unique prep issues, say Jennifer Filippazzo and Lauren Evans (..)
It could be claimed that she became a limited public figure subject to the higher standard of proof in NewYork Times v. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”
On October 19, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied a natural gas pipeline developer’s petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of its ruling that upheld the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC’s) denial of a water quality certificate for the pipeline. 3:17 -cv-02824 (N.D.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content