A recent decision by Senior District Judge Robert Payne on a Daubert motion in class action litigation against a pension fund offers some helpful lessons on challenging expert witnesses in the EDVA. Trauernicht v. Genworth Fin., Inc., Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-532, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95739 (E.D.Va. May 29, 2024).

Parties involved in contract disputes often desire to avoid contractual limitations on recovery, fostering creative attempts to transform breach of contract claims into tort or other noncontractual causes of action. Such efforts face numerous hurdles, and the recent decision by U.S. District Judge Mark Davis in , Civil Action No. 4:23CV153, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83430 (E.D. May 7, 2024), illustrates the difficulty in squeezing the square peg of a breach of contract claim into the round hole of tort or bailment.

Litigation challenging government economic regulation has become more common, as courts appear increasingly less deferential to legislative and executive action. Most of this type of litigation focuses on federal regulation, but states have also taken a more active role in business regulation, prompting more frequent challenges to state laws in federal courts.

It is not uncommon in litigation for parties to introduce testimony through depositions taken for use at trial. It is very uncommon, though, for a party to request to use their own deposition testimony as their trial testimony, rather than appearing as a live witness. A recent decision by EDVA Judge David Novak granting such a request illustrates the flexibility of the rules governing the use of deposition testimony at trial as well as the considerations counsel must consider when planning to offer deposition testimony at trial. Glass v. Metro. Wash. Airport Auth., Civil Action No. 1:23cv1449 (DJN), 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 66062 (E.D.Va. April 10, 2024).

In a lengthy and detailed opinion, EDVA Judge Hannah Lauck has dismissed a suit alleging infringement of seven patents relating to coordinating drivers to transport vehicles between locations, holding that the patents were not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). DriverDo, LLC , d/b/a Draiver v. Social Auto Transport, Inc., d/b/a HopDrive, Civil Action No. 3:23cv265-MHL, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58460 (E.D.Va. March 29, 2024).