Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Best of the Fray

On 1/11/07, we posted about an article in Neurology where some medical professors, having had an unpleasant brush with third-party discovery into their research, argued in favor of a "research scholar privilege." We've learned (via TortsProf Blog) that an exchange of correspondence on the article is now available at the Neurology site -- a letter response from one of the attorneys who took the offending discovery, and the authors' reply.

It's a little funny to see the attorney's letter in a forum like Neurology. It reads just like a cleverly argumentative legal brief.

The thing of it is, so does the doctors' response.

Fine lawyering, all around. We agree, by the way, with Professor Childs: The discovery doesn't sound all that oppressive to us.


Blogger sara writes ...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog.

4:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Fed. R. Evid. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.