Appellate

• We represented a general contractor in a products liability suit which the court had designated as “complex.” Pursuant to the designation, the trial court issued a formal case management order which addressed discovery, pre-trial submissions and motions practice. We moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims on the ground that the plaintiff violated the order by failing to provide discovery within the time provided; the court granted that motion and dismissed the case. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the case management order did not comport with Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (“ORCP”) and that the trial court lacked the authority to enter and enforce it. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, agreeing with our argument that the trial court had the authority to enter and enforce the case management order and was not inconsistent with the ORCP. Weihl v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 204 Or App 255, 129 P3d 748, rev. denied 342 Or 254, 149 P3d 1213 (2006).
• We represented an employee who alleged that she experienced whistleblower retaliation as a result of her report of unlawful and unethical activities by her supervisors at a public entity. The claim was filed on the first anniversary of the termination of her employment. The employer moved to dismiss one of the employee’s claims on the ground that it was filed after the one year statute of limitations, alleging that the first anniversary of the termination of her employment was 366 days (a leap year) earlier, and that under prior Oregon precedent, a “year” meant only 365 days, regardless of whether there was a leap year. The trial court relied upon dicta from an older appellate opinion and granted the employer’s motion. On appeal, we argued that the term “year” encompassed leap years, and did not mean only “365 days.” The Court of Appeals agreed with our argument, reversed the trial court, and disavowed its prior dicta. Neff v. Jackson County, 187 Or App 402, 67 P3d 977 (2003).