Let the Record Reflect, There Are No “Usual Stipulations”

2023/02/23

By The Legal Intelligencer’s The Young Lawyer Editorial Board Let’s set the record straight. There are no “usual stipulations” that apply to depositions. Although some attorneys may share a vague understanding about the usual stipulations, the phrase has no established meaning. In fact, there is no rule, case, or statute that defines the usual stipulations. “Everyone purports to know without asking the content of the ‘usual stipulations’ until a dispute arises; the ephemeral nature of the parties’ understanding is then quite apparent.” See United States v. Liquid Sugars, 158 F.R.D. 466, 473 n.8 (E.D. Cal. 1994). Because the phrase has no accepted meaning, an attorney should respond to a proposal for the usual stipulations by asking, “What do you mean by the usual stipulations?” The question might elicit shock, anger, or some patronizing retort like, “I’m surprised you don’t know what the usual stipulations are.” You may feel tempted to agree to the usual stipulations without any clarification. This is especially true for newer lawyers, who fear that asking for an explanation will reveal their inexperience. But there is no reason to be embarrassed. In all likelihood, the attorney proposing the usual stipulations has no idea what the phrase means. Many attorneys simply mimic what they perceive to be a common practice without questioning whether the practice makes sense. These same attorneys might argue, “I’ve done hundreds of depositions, and no one has ever refused the usual stipulations.” That may be true, but a prevalent practice can still be a flawed practice. Consider these two common versions of the usual stipulations: “reserving all objections until trial or there is an attempt to use the deposition” or “reserving all objections except to the form of a question.” While neither helps the taking attorney, both give the defending attorney a strategic advantage beyond what the rules provide. Read More

Rich Parks to speak at Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Program

2023/02/22

Pietragallo partner Rich Parks will be participating in the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s seminar “PA Business Law Quirks: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt Your Client” co-sponsored by the PBA Business Law Section and PBA Large Law Firm Committee, of which Kevin serves as the chair. This seminar will be held virtually on February 22, 2023. Kevin will be moderating the event while Rich will be speaking on the PA Deficiency Judgment Act. Business law is an integral aspect of any legal system as it governs and regulates the business environment, this program offers an overview of key concepts necessary to establish a strong foundation in this practice area. During the program speakers will be presenting on: Forming business entities under PA law (Corporations, LLCs and LP) Anti-takeover law Consent to Jurisdiction by registration, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Enterprise liability in PA – piercing the corporate veil Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law: Who is protected, What does it protect against? Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin. Inc. PA Deficiency Judgment Act Further information can be found here: https://www.pbi.org/Meetings/Meeting.aspx?ID=44457 Read More

Proportionality, Preservation, and Cost-Sharing: A Reminder on E-Discovery Considerations

2023/01/19

Pretrial practice and discovery are critical stages of the litigation process, as they allow parties to gather and exchange information relevant to the case before it goes to trial. In recent years, the issue of e-discovery has become increasingly prevalent in pretrial practice, as more information is stored electronically. This has led to significant changes in how parties manage discovery, as well as how courts interpret and apply the rules governing e-discovery. A case that highlights these challenges is Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 1:2011cv01279 (S.D.N.Y 2012). In this case, the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, brought an employment-discrimination-and-retaliation lawsuit against her former employer. During the discovery process, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s request for electronic documents was overly broad and unduly burdensome. The court ultimately agreed and ordered the defendant to produce only a limited set of electronic documents. The Da Silva Moore case illustrates the importance of proportionality in e-discovery. The court recognized that, while the defendant had a duty to preserve and produce relevant electronic documents, the plaintiff’s request was so broad and burdensome that it outweighed the potential benefits of producing all the requested documents. This decision demonstrates that, to avoid disputes over e-discovery, parties must be mindful of proportionality when making requests for electronic documents. The Da Silva Moore court also addressed the issue of cost shifting. The court ordered the defendant to bear the cost of producing the electronic documents, but also noted that the plaintiff may be required to reimburse the defendant for certain costs if the plaintiff ultimately loses the case. This highlights the importance of considering not only the breadth of the discovery sought but the potential the costs of that discovery, for both for the requesting party and the producing party. To mitigate the challenges of e-discovery, it is essential for attorneys and their clients to be proactive in identifying and preserving electronic documents that may be relevant to the case. Read More

Uncharted waters: The University of Pittsburgh’s football team forays into newly available name, image and likeness opportunities

2022/10/21

I. University of Pittsburgh’s Handing of NIL Change The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) has taken a progressive stance on its Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) policy; choosing to assist its student-athletes rather than hinder them in pursuit of these newfound opportunities. The recent change in the NCAA’s stance on student-athlete compensation has given the players the opportunity for personal financial gain and the ability to partner with charities. “As it relates to providing our student-athletes with the most extraordinary experience at Pitt, our goal is to be progressive, innovative and helpful in every aspect of their student-athlete experience and the world of name, image and likeness is no different…We look forward to helping our student-athletes learn more about this topic and build a transparent relationship with them and their families so we can assist in their efforts or aspirations to maximize compensation and opportunities involving their name, image and likeness,1” said Heather Lyke, Pitt’s Athletic Director. One of Pitt boosters’ first major foray into NIL came in the form of a traditional NIL collective, Alliance 412. Per NCAA guidance, Alliance 412 seeks to support all Pitt athletics without a formal relationship with the University itself. Instead, the collective hopes to connect Pitt student-athletes with businesses and strategic partners while maintaining transparency and compliance.2 On Aug. 10, 2021, the Steel City NIL Club began operation through a partnership with YOKE. This organization offers a unique approach for members of Pitt’s football team to engage in a variety of NIL opportunities. In contrast to Alliance 412, which engages in more traditional NIL deals, the Steel City NIL Club is a more direct revenue stream for the players. The YOKE platform creates a paywalled community granting paying members special access to the participating players in the form of Q and A’s, and exclusive player created content.3 The profits from these memberships are then split evenly among the participating players. Read More

Pietragallo Welcomes New Associate

2022/10/17

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce the addition of a new associate to the firm’s Pittsburgh and Philadelphia Offices. Megan E. Young joins our Employment & Labor team in our Philadelphia Office. Megan completed an externship in the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department where she handled a multitude of aspects of the litigation process including initial responsive pleadings, written discovery, depositions, pre-trial motions, municipal court, and arbitration hearings. She also spent time at a public healthcare technology company. Megan is a graduate of Temple University Beasley School of Law. About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

22 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2023 The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch

2022/08/18

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 22 lawyers have been named as 2023 The Best Lawyers in America and 2023 Ones to Watch. Best Lawyers employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of the quality of legal services. Recognition by Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer review. The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America: Gaetan Alfano Pamela Coyle Brecht Phillip R. Earnest Mark Gordon James W. Kraus James F. Marrion Richard J. Parks William Pietragallo, II Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Kevin E. Raphael Marc Stephen Raspanti Douglas K. Rosenblum Clem C. Trischler Peter St. Tienne Wolff The following were chosen as The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch: Lee K. Goldfarb John Kettering Alexander M. Owens Stephen F. Raiola Mark T. Sottile Frank H. Stoy About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and litigation law firm headquartered in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

ERISA: A Journey from a Promise of Protection to a Retirement Crisis

2022/06/08

The closure of the Studebaker-Packard Corporation car manufacturing plant in 1963 was a major catalyst leading into the enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act of 1974 (“ERISA.”) This pension plan had promised generous benefits for the participants, but the plan was severely underfunded and was not able to cover the benefits for many of the employees vested in the plan. The failure of the Studebaker pension plan, along with a high profile conviction of infamous Teamsters boss James Hoffa on pension fraud, drew the attention to pension plan corruption and mismanagement and spurred talk of reform and regulation in Washington, DC. Ryles, Eric (December 3, 2018). “The History of the Employee Retirement Income Savings Act (ERISA)”. Judy Diamond Associates, Inc. Retrieved May 3, 2022. Just over a decade later, ERISA was codified in the United States Code.[1] This article is not intended to suggest that ERISA has been a complete failure. Like other laws, ERISA has limitations and lacks flexibility in achieving its intended goals. The decline of the number of American workers covered by defined benefit plans illustrates how this legislation that was intended to protect participants of defined benefit plans has instead reduced the continued availability and utilization of those plans in the industrial and manufacturing sector. Specifically, airline, steel, and trade & craft workers, among others, have faced significant challenges in the funding and perpetuation of benefits provided by these plans. Defined benefit plans have become associated with being expensive and inflexible. The funding requirements on an annual basis are not predictable due to volatility experienced in market returns and changes in employee censuses of the plan sponsor. The funding requirements have increased in many employment sectors due to declining employment levels. That is, more participants have been transitioning to pay status as compared to the number of new entrants being hired.  Read More

23 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2022 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

2022/05/23

Pietragallo is pleased to announce that 23 lawyers have been named as 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars, including partner Marc Raspanti who was recognized in the Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. Super Lawyers is a service of Thomson Reuters legal division which compiles a list of outstanding lawyers from more than 74 practice areas. Each year, a research team at Super Lawyers conducts a multi-phase selection process reviewing independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. With the objective being to provide a reliable, wide-ranging list of attorneys that can be used as a source for finding exceptional legal counsel. The following were chosen as Pennsylvania Super Lawyers: Gaetan J. Alfano Joseph J. Bosick Mark Gordon P. Brennan Hart Christopher A. Iacono James W. Kraus Michael A. Morse William Pietragallo, II Francis E. Pipak, Jr. Kevin E. Raphael Marc S. Raspanti (Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 in Philadelphia) Lourdes Sánchez Ridge Douglas K. Rosenblum Clem C. Trischler Paul K. Vey The following were chosen as Pennsylvania Rising Stars: Jeremy E. Abay Rebecca Johnson Barksdale Ashley J. Kenny John W. Kettering Alexander Owens Peter St. Tienne Wolff   About Pietragallo Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is a multi-disciplined business and commercial litigation firm headquartered in Pittsburgh with six offices throughout Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and West Virginia from which we are able to serve our clients in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Read More

When Work-Life Balance is Underwater

2022/05/13

Read More

BEWARE Pension Plan Trustees: The United States Supreme Court has Reinforced Your Responsibility

2022/01/31

On Monday, January 24, 2022 the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion in the Hughes, et al. v. Northwestern University, et al. case. Before the Court was the issue of whether Northwestern University violated its fiduciary duty to a class of employee-investors under ERISA by allegedly including unnecessarily expensive investment options and paying excessive fees although they simultaneously offered low cost options. In short, is it a violation of Northwestern’s fiduciary duty to offer both reasonable and unreasonable investment options if they ultimately allow the employee investor to choose which plan to invest in? The District Court ruled the university satisfied their fiduciary duty and dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit agreed affirming the lower court. The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed and reinstated the class action finding that employee choice does not cure the universities’ potentially imprudent offerings. The basis for the Supreme Court’s reversal and remand is that the lower courts’ rationale was inconsistent with the explanation of the duties owed by a fiduciary explained in Tibble v. Edison Int’l, including the duty to monitor and oversee all plan investment options and remove any deemed imprudent. 575 U. S. 523, 530 (2015). While the Seventh Circuit also based its opinion on guidance provided in Tibble, namely the duty to offer a diverse menu of plan options, it ignored the duty to remove imprudent offerings. The Court briefly touched on the Petitioners’ allegation including: 1. Northwestern failed to monitor record keeping and investment management fees; 2. Northwestern offered plan options including “retail” share classes while identical and cheaper “institutional” share classes were available; and 3. Northwestern created confusion by offering over 400 investment options. By focusing solely on the university diversifying their plan options and providing participant choice, the Seventh Circuit and District Court ignored other equally important aspects of the duty of prudence owed by a fiduciary. Read More