After an eight-year legal battle against Remington Arms, nine Sandy Hook victims’ families reached a historic settlement worth $73 million.
Students from Law School and University are involved in the $73 million settlement
Remington Arms manufactured the AR-15-style weapon Sandy Hook’s perpetrator used to kill 26 kindergarteners, first graders, and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
After developing a new legal theory that would hold gun companies responsible for gun violence incidents, Katie Mesner-Hage LAW ’13 and lead attorneys Josh Koskoff, Alinor Sterling, at Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder were able to secure the mike hostilo commercial. Day Pitney, a Connecticut law firm that originally represented Remington Arms as well as Yale, filed to end their Remington representation in December.
Mesner-Hage was hired as the first fellow for a program Koskoff launched to help law school graduates. This was due to her prior experience with gun laws in law school. While working as a research assistant at Law School Emily Bazelon, she had published articles on firearm and gun-related policies and law in Slate. In 2019, she left the firm for personal reasons that were not connected to the case.
Gun manufacturers such as Remington have been protected from liability by the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (or PLCAA), which prohibits anyone from suing gun companies selling weapons. Mesner-Hage described the law as “unprecedented”, because it offered an “airtight immunity” for the entire industry.
Mesner-Hage claims that she worked with Koskoff, as well as other lawyers from the firm, to dive into PLCAA and then to find legal gaps that would permit Remington to sue.
Mesner-Hage stated that they narrowed down on a few exceptions. The one that carried the case to its conclusion into the settlement was one that basically states that if a gun manufacturer violates any state or federal law that in some manner relates to the sale and marketing of firearms, then that is the basis for a lawsuit.
Mesner-Hage claims that the development of this theory was primarily focused on Remington’s advertising of the AR-15 to civilians. This marketing campaign could have been in violation to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA).
Sandy Hook families and the law firm investigated how Remington’s advertising evoked images of “lone gunmen” and tropes of toxic masculinity.
Alinor Sterling, a partner with Koskoff, stated that Remington’s marketing behavior was precisely the type of irresponsible and dangerous business conduct that CUTPA was intended to ban.
Koskoff presented the history of AR-15 marketing at a press conference that followed the settlement. The AR-15s that were adopted by the military were also made available to the general public. However, they remained a small niche market for over 40 years. After Remington and other gun makers launched marketing campaigns, AR-15 sales exploded. In 2005, 100,000 AR-15s were sold in the U.S. Over two million of these guns were sold in America in 2012, the year after the Sandy Hook shooting.
Megner-Hage stated that the marketing angle was “kind of in my head since day one.” “The theory behind the case would be that this marketing campaign was a basically a deliberate plan to market the weapon, which was designed to inflict massive casualties by targeting this population, which was likely to become, you know. a lone Mass Shooter… So that was kinda how we were able puncture the plaque.
The case was filed in Connecticut in 2014. It was denied in the initial trial in 2016. The lower court’s decision was overturned after a appeal to Connecticut Supreme Court in March 2019. Remington Arms filed for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court in 2019. The motion was denied.
Alinor Sterling, an Alinor Sterling attorney at Koskoff noted that unlike other settlements, the Remington Arms settlement doesn’t require the plaintiff keep confidential the documents they gathered in discovery. If the families choose to release these documents, in addition to depositions of Remington executives, it will be possible to release thousands of them. Sterling stated that these documents would be useful in aiding existing cases as well as “lifting the veil on secrecy about gun company internal practices for public.”
Sterling stated that lawyers can use these documents to gain valuable information about the industry from its internal structures and shared information among companies. This can be a benefit to future cases, as it can allow them to stand on the shoulders and of settlements such as this one.
Mesner-Hage said, “It’s such an incredible victory and the resolve by the families is so amazing.” “I can’t overstate the importance of this lawsuit being filed. Except for the families, nobody thought that this case would be successful. This is so important because seven years later, the settlement feels historic and important. However, for some, it also feels inevitable. It was not inevitable in 2014, and I cannot express how grateful I am for that.
Lawyers, who previously represented Remington, continue to represent Yale
Day Pitney LLP, a New Haven-based law firm, represented Yale. Day Pitney made controversial legal moves, including subpoenas to the academic, disciplinary, and employment records of the slain staff and children. Day Pitney was also accused of sending memes to Sandy Hook families as part of discovery. Yale retained Day Pitney’s counsel despite connections to the case, and concerns about the firm’s ethical code.
Day Pitney has been advising Yale for years in real property, zoning work and bond offerings. She is currently serving as local counsel to Yale, helping it defend against a lawsuit that challenges diversity of admissions. Karen Peart, spokesperson for the University, said that Day Pitney has been advising Yale for years. In October, student pressure mounted to end University ties with Day Pitney. 129 members of the University community signed an open letter critiquing Day-Pitney’s role as legal counsel.
“Our tuition dollars shouldn’t have been used for harassment of these families, and in the future I don’t believe our tuition dollars should be paying the salary of someone who thought that it was the right call,” stated Matt Post ’22, who co-wrote October’s open letter together with Thaddeus Tallbot LAW ’22.
Talbot called Day Pitney’s methods of seeking employment and academic records to calculate damage reward damages “pretty disgusting” and said that other stalling tactics were “quite disrespectful, and showed a lack in integrity.”
Nathaniel Nickerson, Vice President for Communications, told the News that Alexander Dreier, University General Counsel, had stated his views to Day Pitney management “in the strongest words.” Talbot claimed that students who had called upon the University to address this issue were not informed.
Talbot stated, “We didn’t know what that conversation was about, so we just waited idly around just waiting for an upgrade.”
Post stated that he believed Yale did the right thing by speaking out against Day Pitney, after hearing students criticize the firm.
Post stated that Yale should remember Day Pitney’s “grossly flawed judgment” when choosing who to retain as counsel. He said that Day Pitney might have withdrawn from the matter, but they have not apologized for harassing these children’s families.
Day Pitney Attorney Beth Sher declined comment
Post stated that he has witnessed a lot of interest from young and undergraduate students in gun violence prevention. Post stated that he expected to see the federal protections for gun makers being rescinded and more lawsuits in the same vein as the Sandy Hook settlement.
Post stated that the same students who marched out of school nearly four years ago and demanded change after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Doug High School are now in college, graduate college, and attending law school. “Our generation won’t stop demanding that policymakers ensure that this country never suffers the same devastation as Sandy Hook.”