Daniel I.A. Smulian

A Focus on Product Liability Litigation & Mass Torts

Dan defends global companies in complex product liability litigation, with a focus on representing medical device and life science companies. He has defended clients in disputes involving a wide array of potential risk; those matters range from multidistrict litigations (MDLs) and other consolidated proceedings involving thousands of cases to single-plaintiff cases involving catastrophic injuries. His successes include numerous wins in cases that were venued in “hell hole” jurisdictions and involved extremely challenging facts.

One of the hallmarks of Dan’s practice is his ability to “right size” his approach to ligation to best serve a client’s objectives. At times, this means overseeing a large team and preparing for a litigation that could last several years. At other times, this means an early conversation with opposing counsel to determine whether a lawsuit can be avoided altogether. Whatever the circumstance, Dan’s clients routinely comment on his responsiveness, the clarity of his communications, and the practicality of his advice and strategic thinking.

Dan has deep experience in all phases of litigation, from early motion practice and fact discovery through expert discovery, trials and appeals. He regularly argues dispositive and other motions in both state and federal courts. When cases reach discovery, he deposes the most critical witnesses. In the mass tort context, he has overseen and managed simultaneous discovery in hundreds of active cases. Dan has been a part of numerous trial teams, and he has spearheaded the successful appeal of trial court victories across the country. He also has secured the reversal of an adverse jury verdict where the client had been represented by other trial counsel.

Representative Experience

• A medical device company in a catastrophic injury case in Connecticut Superior Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court: The plaintiff claimed that the actions of a sales representative caused her minor child to suffer a brain injury that left her in a persistent vegetative state. Following an eight-week trial, the jury rendered a complete defense verdict. The plaintiff appealed, arguing, in part, that the jury’s verdict was not unanimous due to an irregularity in the jury poll. The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument and affirmed the verdict for the medical device manufacturer that employed the sales representative.
• A pharmaceutical company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: In response to a motion to remand, Dan successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were predicated on alleged violations of federal law, thereby securing jurisdiction in federal court. The court subsequently granted the client’s motion to dismiss.
• A medical device company facing a potential mass tort in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas: Due to a combination of a successful forum non conveniens motion in the first case filed in Philadelphia, snap removals in subsequently filed cases in that jurisdiction, and successful motions to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the client faced fewer than 50 total cases. By way of contrast, other manufacturers of similar devices faced thousands of cases. The majority of the cases were resolved without any payment to the plaintiffs, an outcome the client viewed as a major success.
• A medical device company alleged of trade secret misappropriation in the Commercial Division of the New York Supreme Court, New York County: After seven years of discovery, which involved complicated cross-border issues and numerous depositions in Galway, Ireland, the case proceeded to trial. After four weeks of evidence, the parties agreed to resolve the plaintiff’s claims on the night before closing arguments. The resolution was a tiny fraction of the plaintiff’s demand on the day that the trial began.
• A medical device company facing cases involving implantable cardiac medical devices in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Central District of California: In each case, the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs in the Louisiana case appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal in favor of the client.

Personal Interests

In his free time, Dan enjoys spending time with his wife, two children and Dudley (arguably the smartest dog in the world). He also enjoys traveling, playing Scrabble and splitting firewood. When he’s not doing those things (and not working), he’s almost certainly fishing.