ON-DECK.
THE TOP STORY THIS HALF HOUR,
THE LEGAL BATTLE WITH JOHNSON &
JOHNSON.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDING
ITSELF AGAINST MORE THAN 14,000
LEGAL CLAIMS PENNED AGAINST IT
DURING A HEARING LATER TODAY.
THE LAWSUITS CLAIM THAT THE
COMPANY'S BABY POWDER AND OTHER
PRODUCTS CAUSE CANCER.
JOINING ME NOW, FOX NEWS SENIOR
JUDICIAL ANALYST JUDGE ANDREW
NAPOLITANO.
WHAT HAPPENS TODAY.
>> WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IS THE
BEGINNING OF WHAT'S CALLED A
BELLWETHER, A PHRASE FOR A MINI
TRIAL TO DETERMINE THE LIKE
OUTCOME OF 14,000 OTHER TRIALS.
THERE ARE 14,000 CASES FILED
NATIONWIDE.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ASSIGNED ALL 14,000 OF
THEM TO ONE FEDERAL JUDGE IN
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY.
OBVIOUSLY, SHE CAN'T TRY 14,000
CASES.
SO THEY PICK THE STANDARD AND
THE BEST CLAIM AMONG THE 14,000,
VERSUS THE STRONGEST AND THE
BEST DEFENSE AND THEY HAVE A
MINI TRIAL.
THIS WEEK, THE MINI TRIAL WILL
FOCUS ON THE EXPERTS BECAUSE
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HAS ARGUED
THAT THE PLAINTIFFS' EXPERTS ARE
USING JUNK SCIENCE AND IF THE
PLAINTIFFS CAN PERSUADE JUDGE
WOLFSON IN TRENTON THAT THEIR
EXPERTS ARE SOUND, THESE CASES
WILL SETTLE AND IT WILL COST J &
J A FORTUNE.
NO WAY WILL 14,000 CASES BE
TRIED.
IF J OFFENDS
IF J &FFENDS
IF J & JENDS
IF J & J CDS
IF J & J CAN PERSUADE JUDGE
WOLFSON THAT THE PLAINTIFFS'
EXPERTS ARE USING JUNK SCIENCE,
A LOT OF THE CASES WILL GO AWAY.
SOME OF THE CAMES
SOME OF THE CASES HAVE BEEN
TRIED, IN ST. LOUIS MISSOURI 22
PLAINTIFFS USED THE SAME
THEORIES, SAME EXPERTS,
$4.69 BILLION AGAINST J & J.
MULTIPLY THAT OUT VERSUS 14,000
PLAINTIFFS SHALL OBVIOUSLY IT'S
A NUMBER THAT IS STAGGERING AND
WOULD PUT J & J OUT OF BUSINESS.
NO WAY TO KNOW WHICH WAY JUDGE
WOLFSON IS GOING TO GO.
>> OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A LOT OF
MONEY INVOLVED.
IT WOULD BE A HUGE FINANCIAL
PENALTY TO J & J IF THIS
HAPPENS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT COULD
HAPPEN IN A SETTLEMENT IN TERMS
OF BEHAVIORAL TYPE REMEDY WHERE
J & J WOULD TAKE CERTAIN STEPS
TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING LIKE THIS
WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN?
>> THERE'S A LOT OF CREATIVITY
IN SETTLEMENTS LIKE THIS,
REMEDIAL FOR THOSE THAT HAVE
BEEN INJURED AS WELL AS CHANGING
THE PRODUCT.
QUITE FRANKLY, WHAT DO THE
PLAINTIFFS WANT?
THEY WANT MONEY.
THEY MADE VERY SERIOUS ARGUMENTS
THAT THEY'VE BEEN INJURED AND
THE INJURY IS PERMANENT AND THAT
J & J CAUSED THE INJURY AND J J&
J KNEW OF THE PROBLEMS.
THEIR ARGUMENTS IS THE OPPOSITE,
WE'RE SORRY THEY GOT HURT BUT WE
DIDN'T HURT THEM.
>> IS THIS BINDING AT ALL?
IT'S A FEDERAL JUDGE.
MANY OF THE 1400 CASES ARE STATE
--
>> 14,000.
THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.
IT IS AND IT ISN'T.
IT IS ISN'T BECAUSE IF YOU
REJECT WHAT JUDGE WOLFSON SAYS
AND RULES TODAY, YOU'RE GOING TO
BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LINE, AT
THE END OF THE LINE OF 14,000
CASES.
GOD ONLY KNOWS WHEN YOUR MATTER
WILL COME BEFORE WHATEVER JUDGE
TO WHOM IT WAS ORIGINALLY A
ASSIGNED.
>> EVEN IF IT'S A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT STATE AND IT'S NOT
FEDERAL.
>> CORRECT.
IF SHE CRAFTS -- SHE'S VERY
SMART.
I KNOW HER WELL.
IF SHE CRAFTS THIS PROPERLY, SHE
COULD PROBABLY BRING ABOUT THE
RAPID RESOLUTION OF THE LION'S
SHARE OF THESE WHICH IS BEST FOR
EVERYBODY.
IT'S BEST FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND
IT'S BEST FOR J & J.
J & J IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF
DEFENDING 14,000 LAWSUITS.
THE PLAINTIFFS WANT SOME MONEY
AND WANT TO GET ON WITH THEIR
LIVES.
THEY DON'T WANT TO STAND IN LINE
WAITING FOR THEIR TURN TO TRY
THE CASE.
THEY MIGHT BE DEAD BY THE TIME
THAT GET TO THE HEAD OF THE
LINE.
DAGEN: IT'S NOT THE PLAINTIFFS,
IT'S THE PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT AS WELL.
WHATEVER SHE CRAFTS BY WAY OF A
SETTLEMENT, SHE'S GOT TO PUT
ASIDE A BIG CHUNK FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS.
>> I WAS GOING IN THE DIRECTION
OF DAMAGES, SO WE CAN MOVE ON.
DAGEN: LET'S MOVE ON.
BECAUSE PRIVACY, AGAIN, THIS IS
RIGHT IN YOUR --
>> THAT STILL EXISTS?
DAGEN: NO, IT DOESN'T,
ACTUALLY.
THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
U.S. COMPANIES ARE STEPPING UP
THE MONITORING OF EMPLOYEES'
DATA, ACCORDING TO A NEW REPORT
BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
YOUR BOSS MAY HAVE ACCESS TO
YOUR E-MAILS AND WHEN THEY WERE
SENT ALONG WITH TEXT MESSAGES
AND PHONE CALLS ON COMPANY-OWNED
DEVICES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO WE ALL HAVE THESE.
THIS IS ISSUED BY FOX.
CAN FOX ACCESS THIS AND KNOW NOT
WHAT I'VE SAID, BUT TO WHOM I'VE
SAID IT AND WHERE I AM AND WHEN
I'VE SAID IT?
ANSWER, YES.
FOX HAS SOFTWARE, CAN ACQUIRE
SOFTWARE -- I'M NOT CRITICIZING
OUR BOSSES BUT THEY CAN ACQUIRE
SOFTWARE LIKE ANY LARGE
CORPORATION THAT WILL ALLOW IT
TO MONITOR THE COMINGS AND
GOINGS OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
WALL STREET JOURNAL HAD A LONG,
DETAILED, FASCINATING PIECE
ABOUT THIS OVER THE WEEKEND.
THEY CAN EVEN TELL HOW MUCH
SLEEP YOU'VE HAD THE NIGHT
BEFORE BY LISTENING TO YOUR TONE
OF VOICE SPEAKING TO YOUR
COLLEAGUES FIRST THING IN THE
MORNING.
NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY
DO THIS.
BECAUSE THEY'RE RUNNING
BUSINESSES AND HAVE BETTER
THINGS TO DO.
YOUR EMPLOYER HAS HIRED YOU TO
HELP PRODUCE A PRODUCT OR
DELIVER A SERVICE.
BUT CAN YOUR EMPLOYER DO IT?
IS THE TECHNOLOGY THERE?
CAN YOUR EMPLOYER ACCESS IT?
YES.
THERE'S ONE EMPLOYER THAT DOES
THIS AND CAN'T DO IT LEGALLY.
DAGEN: GOVERNMENT.
>> BECAUSE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
RESTRAINS THE GOVERNMENT.
DOESN'T RESTRAIN PRIVATE
ENTITIES.
IT RESTRAINS THE GOVERNMENT.
>> I THINK ONE OF THE
INTERESTING THINGS IS HOW
DIFFERENT GENERATIONS VIEW
PRIVACY.
YOUNGER PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY OKAY
HAVING NO PRIVACY.
OLDER PEOPLE ARE NOT.
I WONDER WHEN IT'S GOING TO
BECOME THAT THEY REALIZE,
YOUNGER PEOPLE REALIZE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF ALL OF THIS.
>> I FEEL LIKE I'M AGAINST THE
TIDE.
DAGEN WAS TEASING ME EARLIER.
WE'VE DONE THIS TYPE OF STORY
MANY TIMES WHEN I DEFEND THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
PRIVACY.
MY ARGUMENT IS I CAN AVOID
GOOGLE.
I CAN'T AVOID THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, I CAN'T AVOID THE
STATE GOVERNMENT.
NOW THIS IS SO PERVASIVE THAT
IT'S ALMOST AS IF PRIVACY IS A
MYTH.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> AS YOU POINT OUT, IF THE
MILLENNIALS THINK IT'S A MYTH,
WHO WILL BE LEFT TO DEFEND IT.
>> SO MANY MILLENNIALS WALK
AROUND WITH TWO PHONES, ONE THE
EMPLOYER GAVE THEM, AND THEIR
PERSONAL ONE.
>> THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID
YOUR EMPLOYER'S PRYING EYE IS TO
GET YOUR OWN CELL PHONE.
DAGEN: IT'S THE ISSUE WITH
PRIVACY WITH DOORBELL CAMERAS,
FOR EXAMPLE.
LISTEN, I'VE BEEN IN -- WITH MY
MOTHER A LOT RECENTLY AND SO WE
WATCH A LOT OF 48 HOURS AND DATE
LINE ON THE DVR AND MORE AND
MORE YOU WILL SEE -- LIKE
LOOKING FOR MISSING -- TRYING TO
FIND A MISSING PERSON, THEY HAVE
-- THEY JUST COLLECT CAMERA,
EVEN DOORBELL CAMERA
INFORMATION.
WITH JUSSIE SMOLLETT, THAT'S HOW
THE POLICE TRACKED DOWN WHAT
HAPPENED.
>> THERE'S DOORBELL CAMERAS,
THERE'S SOME DOORBELL CAMERAS IN
SMALL TOWNS IN AMERICA, USUALLY
UPSCALE SMALL TOWNS THAT ARE
CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
ANYBODY IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
THAT KNOWS HOW TO ACCESS IT CAN
GET A VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING
IN FRONT OF YOUR FRONT DOOR.
CAN THEY GET A VIEW OF WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THE INSIDE?
WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT
YET.
THE OTHER TYPE OF DOORBELL
CAMERAS, IT'S YOU AND YOUR
SERVICE PROVIDER, CAN POLICE GET
A COPY OF THAT?
MOST COURTS SAY THEY NEED A
WARRANT FOR THAT.
SOME SERVICE PROVIDERS GIVE IT
TO THE COPS WHEN THEY ASK FOR
IT.
WHERE IS PRIVACY?
>>
DAGEN: I DON'T THINK YOUNG
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE
PUTTING AT RISK UNTIL IT BITES
THEM IN THE YOU KNOW WHAT.
>> IF YOU READ 1984, ORWELL'S
NOVEL, IS BEYOND WHAT HE
PREDICTED.
HE WROTE IT IN THE 1940s.
HE PREDICTED A LOT OF THINGS.
THE DOORBELL CAMERA IS
TERRIFYING.
DAGEN: I AGREE.
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING
HAPPIER
HAPPYER
HAPPY ONE
HAPPIEONE
HAPPIERNE
HAPPIER ONE OF THESE DAY.
DAGEN: WE'LL TALK ABOUT J-LO'S
DRESS.