Insights & Events

In another joint effort, Hollingsworth LLP is partnering with Atlantic Legal Foundation (“ALF”) on an amicus brief supporting Kenvue’s petition for rehearing en banc, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., 182 F.4th 168 (2d Cir. 2026).

In its panel decision, the Second Circuit allowed plaintiffs’ claims to proceed while bypassing the rigorous evaluation mandated by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The upcoming brief will emphasize the proper judicial gatekeeping role in products liability and toxic tort litigation, which the panel’s decision overlooked in reviewing the district court’s extensive opinion excluding plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Rule 702.

Hollingsworth LLP will urge the full Second Circuit to grant rehearing to clarify that appellate circumvention of Rule 702’s rigorous standards—particularly in light of the recent 2023 amendments reinforcing judicial gatekeeping duties—is entirely contrary to the rule’s text and intent.

Hollingsworth LLP’s effort aims to ensure strict judicial adherence to the 2023 amendments to FRE 702. Firm partner Eric Lasker helped catalyze those vital amendments by co-authoring Defending Daubert: It’s Time to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which the FRE Advisory Committee cited in its review of the rule. Over the years, ALF has retained Hollingsworth LLP to author other Rule 702 amicus briefs across multiple federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, including:

• Union Carbide v. Sommerville (4th Cir. 2026) – Amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for certiorari filed by Union Carbide Corporation and Covestro LLC in Union Carbide Corp. v. Sommerville (25-919) urging the Supreme Court to accept the case in order to correct the Fourth Circuit’s misapplication of Rule 702 as clarified by the 2023 amendments and Advisory Committee Notes.
• Gill v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (Pa. Super. 2025) – Amicus curiae brief in support of ExxonMobil Corporation to overturn a grossly excessive verdict resulting largely from multiple errors by the Court of Common Pleas in assessing the admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert evidence.
• EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir. 2024) – Amicus curiae brief in support of Google urging en banc review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to address the question of whether a federal district court properly applied Rule 702 in a patent infringement case involving Google’s Nest smart thermostats.
• In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation, Carr v. Google (9th Cir. 2023) – Amicus curiae brief in support of Google urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse the district court judge’s misapplication of Rule 702, and its forthcoming amendments, when the district court relied on faulty expert testimony to certify a 21-million-member class.