Photo of Marc Capuano

Marc Capuano

Marc Capuano is a stand-up litigator in the Washington, DC office, where he represents clients in all phases of complex class actions and commercial litigation, including dispositive motions, discovery, and trial.

Marc works with national and international clients across various industries to help them successfully resolve their most difficult litigation challenges in state and federal court. Among others, Marc has counseled clients in the life sciences, pharmaceutical, technology, and automotive industries. Marc has expertise in all stages of litigation, including drafting dispositive motions, taking and defending depositions, and in-court argument. A member of multiple trial teams in both state and federal court, Marc understands how to position and prepare cases for successful resolution at trial.

Marc’s active pro bono practice includes first-chairing a Maryland first degree murder trial during which the team secured their client’s acquittal and successful litigation to defend the rights of swing-state voters following the 2020 Presidential election. Marc has honed his oral advocacy through his pro bono work, including by arguing Daubert and other substantive motions, giving the opening statement at trial, and conducting trial cross and direct examinations.

Prior to joining Covington, Marc served as a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond). A native Rhode Islander, before attending law school, Marc worked as Correspondence Director and Legislative Correspondent for U.S. Senator Jack Reed (RI) in Washington.

Contact:Read more about Marc CapuanoEmail

Courts have recently been grappling with an influx of class actions alleging that company websites are in violation of wiretapping and other privacy laws when using third-party technology to provide services on their websites.  Three different federal courts recently dismissed cases on similar grounds, demonstrating the challenges plaintiffs face with maintaining them and strategies defendants should keep in mind to defeat them. 

Two of the cases accuse healthcare providers of improperly sharing personal health information with third-party technology companies through the use of pixel technologies on the healthcare provider’s website.  In the first case, Doe v. Davita, Inc., plaintiffs accused Davita—a kidney dialysis provider—of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and other laws by purportedly collecting “patients’ personal and sensitive medical information on the Online Platforms and … improperly shar[ing] [this information] with the Tracking Technologies without patients’ consent.”  2024 WL 1772854, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 24, 2024).  The court disagreed and dismissed the claims, holding that plaintiffs did “not explain what specific information they provided to Defendant” and calling their claims “conclusory.”  Id.  The complaint, said the court, was “devoid of any facts supporting” plaintiffs’ contentions that Davita disclosed “personal, confidential, and sensitive medical information; medical treatment; and payment information” with the third party.  Id. Continue Reading Lack of Plaintiff-Specific Allegations Dooms California, Pennsylvania Privacy-Based Class Actions

On April 15, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by Visa and Mastercard to review a D.C. Circuit decision that appeared to add to a circuit split about how lower courts are to determine whether common issues predominate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). 

The case, Visa Inc. v. Nat’l ATM Council, Inc., Case No. 23-814, was part of a long-running dispute between the card companies and ATM operators about ATM fees.  In July, the D.C. Circuit upheld the certification of three different Plaintiff classes over the card companies’ argument that the district court had failed to perform a “rigorous analysis” about whether class-wide issues predominated.  Nat’l ATM Council, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 2023 WL 4743013 (D.C. Cir. 2023).  Although it noted that the district court’s analysis was “notably terse,” the D.C. Circuit found no error in the lower court’s holding that Plaintiffs need only demonstrate a “colorable” method of proving class-wide injury and that the Plaintiffs’ evidence satisfied that test.  Rejecting the card companies’ argument that Plaintiffs’ class-wide injury methodology failed to weed out uninjured class members, the court observed that “Defendants’ contention that their model showing unharmed members is more accurate and credible than Plaintiffs’ different models showing that all members were harmed is … precisely the kind of material factual dispute” that should be resolved at the merits, not class certification, stage.  Id. at *11.    Continue Reading Supreme Court Declines to Wade into Class Certification “Predominance” Issue

            December 1 marks an important and long-awaited change to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  The Rule, pertaining to the testimony of expert witnesses, has not received a substantive update since 2000, when it was amended in the wake of the Daubert decision.  Now, more than 20 years later—and after years of study—the Rule has been amended to make two issues clear:  (1) that the proponent of an expert’s testimony must establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of his or her methodology to the case.  These changes reinforce the key gatekeeping role that courts play in ensuring that only helpful, reliable expert testimony is heard by the factfinder. Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Changes To F.R.E. 702 Will Help Ensure Courts Follow The Expert ‘Gatekeeping’ Function

We are seeing a growing number of class actions alleging consumer harms from corporate carbon offset policies.  On October 13, a California federal court threw out such a case (albeit with leave to amend) against e-commerce site Etsy.   

The lawsuit, Blackburn v. Etsy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05711 (C.D. Cal. 2023), stemmed from a number of carbon offset promises Etsy has made since 2019—that the company engages in “100% offsetting [of] all carbon emissions from shipping[,]” that it was “the first major online shopping destination to offset 100% of carbon emissions generated by shipping[,]” and that its “goal [is] to run a carbon neutral business[.]”  Dkt. No. 20 at 1.  Plaintiffs alleged that the carbon offset promises were false “due to endemic methodological errors and fraudulent accounting on behalf of offset vendors.”  Id.  Plaintiffs claimed that Etsy’s false promises caused them harm because they paid more for products on the site than they otherwise would have under the mistaken belief that Etsy’s shipments were carbon neutral. Continue Reading California Federal Court Throws Out Carbon Offset Class Action Against Etsy

Courts and litigants continue to grapple with the new frontier of artificial intelligence (“AI”).  One recent case in California demonstrates a new wrinkle in this evolving landscape—the use of AI to aggregate class claims.

Because class settlements bind absent class members who do not object or opt out, Rule 23 requires courts to carefully review and approve them as “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”  An important part of this inquiry is making sure class members are given adequate notice of the terms of the proposed settlement and their rights.  When class members are required to submit claims to access settlement benefits, parties often turn to professional claims administration companies to assist in providing notice and facilitating the claims process.  Under Rule 23, courts closely monitor the information that flows from class counsel and claims administrators to putative class members to make sure it complies with due process.Continue Reading California Federal Court Clamps Down on ‘En Masse’ Class Claims Identified by AI