We are honored to be on this year’s Inc. 5000 list of the fastest growing private companies again.
Inc. Magazine’s Inc. 5000 list is their “most complete portrait of the universe of growing private companies ever assembled,” and we are grateful to have been recognized three times since the list’s inception four years ago.
More importantly, however, is that we recognize you, our clients, as being the reason for our continued success. We know that you have a choice, and we are very appreciative to you for allowing us to serve you.
As always, I invite your suggestions on how we can improve on our service to you and welcome submissions and/or suggestions on content matter for this e-newsletter.
Safeguarding Against Deposition Omissions
By Brad Bradshaw, Bradshaw Litigation Consulting
If a witness has been adequately prepared for his deposition he knows that he is not going to be able tell his side of the story. Instead, it is a lot like playing a game of Twenty-Questions. One person asks questions and the other person answers questions. The person answering does not need to volunteer any information that is not a part of the question. He must answer honestly but it is the questioner’s job to ask the right questions. If she does not ask the right questions, then she loses the game.
Depositions are the process by which you find out what a witness has to say, lock him into his answers, and determine how he will hold up at trial. Sounds simple enough. Still, more often than not, the deposition ends with stones left unturned.
For any particular topic the questions should start off broad and then get more and more specific. There are a couple reasons. First, you want to ensure you are not making any assumptions about what a witness has to say. Second, you will get more information from the witness by asking broad questions first and then narrowing your focus. For example, if you ask the witness, “What exactly did you tell the doctor?” the witness can probably answer, “I don’t remember.” However, if you cast a wider net to get the gist of the conversation first, and then start nailing the witness down to specifics, you will walk away from the deposition with much more information.
Electronic data discovery is just for big budget cases involving big companies, handled by big firms. Right. And suffrage is just for white, male landowners. Some Neanderthal notions take longer than others to get shown the door, and it’s time to explode the myth that e-discovery is just for the country club set.
Today, evidence means electronic evidence; so, like the courts themselves, access to evidence can’t be just for the privileged. Everyone gets to play.
If you think big firms succeed at EDD because they know more than you do, think again. Marketing hype aside, big firm litigators don’t know much more about EDD than solo practitioners. Corporate clients hire pricey vendors with loads of computing power to index, search, de-duplicate, convert and manage terabytes of data. Big law firms deploy sophisticated in-house or hosted review platforms that let armies of associates and contract lawyers plow through vast plains of data — viewing, tagging, searching, sorting and redacting with a few keystrokes. The big boys simply have better toys.
This excerpt from the testimony of an expert witness (neurosurgeon) in the trial of a slip and fall case.
Q. Doctor, I guess I want to ask you about both then, both the original condition [of her back] and the surgery.
A. Her back is not a virgin. It wasn’t a virgin from the moment that the disc herniated. If the surgery were performed by angels … there will be some scar formation. The scar is not formed by the surgery, it’s formed by a patient that is alive after the surgery. If you don’t want scars forming after surgery, you must kill the patient. I try to avoid that, okay.