Los Angeles Dodgers Divorce Trial (Technology)

12/7/2010 UPDATE: TEAM JAMIE GETS THE "W"

No hesitation in adding this $450 MM high-profile win to my résumé, working with David Boies, Dennis Wasser, Bruce Cooperman, Mike Kump, and the rest of Team Jamie. Litigation-Tech provided trial presentation consulting, evidence management (TrialDirector databases), and graphics. This case involved long hours and very hard teamwork – a simple formula that I’ve consistently experienced in any big trial win. Congratulations and Happy Holidays, Jamie!

See the L.A. Times article: Judge rules in favor of Jamie McCourt in Dodgers ownership struggle

While I’m not at liberty to offer any inside information, I will say that working with the likes of David Boies and Jim Miller (Boies, Schiller & Flexner), Dennis Wasser and Bruce Cooperman (Wasser, Cooperman & Carter), Michael Kump (Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert), and the rest of Jamie McCourt’s dream-team is a real treat.

Ross Baron (formerly with Merrill) and I were contacted by Wasser Cooperman paralegal Mary Yates and subsequently retained to provide evidence management, war room support and trial presentation. Ross has been handling most of the prep, while I have been in the “hot seat” in court during the trial. This is an incredibly interesting trial, with an incredibly talented and dedicated team of professionals.

With one week in the books, we have a little pause in the action until the trial resumes, so I wanted to at least post something on the blawg, as it has been a few weeks. It’s funny how work can quickly push lesser priorities off the road.

I will not discuss the case, but I will share an interesting experience regarding trial presentation and technology. Once the doors are opened to the courtroom, the proceedings get rolling quickly. Typically, we might have at least 30 minutes or so to get everything online and test the system. On Wednesday, the doors opened at 1:30 after lunch, and Boies resumed his examination of Frank McCourt by 1:35. I had a little “issue” with my trial presentation laptop (which I had brought with me during lunch), causing me to jump to my backup laptop (which had remained in the courtroom, ready to go) and flip the switch to quickly bring up the requested exhibit. Fortunately, I had the backup in place (which, by the way, is an excellent example of why we always have backup systems in court). There is simply no good excuse for failure in this business – especially in high-profile matters. After a few stressful moments, I was able to bring the primary laptop back online, and take a deep sigh of relief. The best part of this is that nobody else even realized that anything had gone wrong (except perhaps those who were sitting nearby). While some smaller cases might allow counsel to handle their own technology, there is certainly a limit with respect to the inherent risks in dealing with it. That stated, it is generally a better idea for an attorney to focus on examining the witness and let someone else worry about the presentation of exhibits.

Incorporating technology into your trial presentation can help significantly in speeding up the pace of the presentation of evidence, since there is no delay in making sure everyone is on the same page – and this is even more important in a bench trial. Exhibits are displayed immediately as they are identified on the record during a bench trial (and, of course once authenticated and/or admitted into evidence in a jury trial). This is one reason successful law firms and their clients insist on bringing all available tools and resources to trial.

Electronic evidence presentation can also help in getting the message out visually, allowing counsel to simply call out an exhibit number and page, and then mention for the record where the witness should look on that page. The exhibit is then brought to life by zooming in and highlighting key text using TrialDirector or similar software. This is particularly effective when discussing documents with the witness, which might otherwise by extremely dull and boring to the observer.

While trial presentation technology may not be able to turn a bad case into a good one, it can certainly help in getting the evidence presented in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

For additional news and views about this case, check out http://www.dodgerdivorce.com/, http://www.laweekly.com/search/index?keywords=mccourt&x=0&y=0, and, of course, most any local L.A. news source.

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication" Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900  San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles
http://www.litigationtech.com/
tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/
WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL

Portable Law Office Equipment: The Printer

Each day during trial, I bring not only my laptop(s), but I am also prepared to print, scan, and perform a variety of other essential functions – all in court. In this article, I will offer a brief review of the Canon PIXMA iP100 printer.

I have used the HP 450 and 460 portable printers, and was about to purchase a new HP 470 printer, when I decided to do a little bit of research before dropping another $250 or so on the latest model. The primary reason for doing this was that I’ve actually purchased two or three 450’s and one 460 – and NONE OF THEM WORK! Actually, the reason I bought the 460 a couple of years ago was because the 450’s would do nothing more than pass a blank page through with any print command – even a print-test page. It appears that the drivers just won’t work any longer. I have no idea why, nor do I care to waste more of my time attempting to figure out what happened and why. According to the reviews I read, it seems that I am only one in a multitude of others with the same issue. Not good.

The HP 460 apparently suffered from some sort of traumatic injury (did I mention I carry these things in my rolling carry-on?) during my daily walks to court. All it does now is shake and rattle a bit, and then lights up to indicate it’s having a paper feed issue. Not good.

So, I looked at alternatives, and the Canon PIXMA iP100 seemed to be the next logical choice. I couldn’t really find much in the way of reviews, which I now guess is a good thing. Did I test this thing before going to court? You bet I did.

During my last trial (one month in the U.S. District Court in S.F.), I hauled in the trusty new Canon in case we would need to print exhibits, outlines, and emails (all of which we did) in court. This little printer performed flawlessly. It (like the HP) is a little noisy for use during the trial, and is best used during a break. A battery pack and Bluetooth capability are also available, although I’m sticking with the USB.

This printer doesn’t actually look all that durable, as it is made of lightweight plastic, but the design appears to work. It is a little smaller than the HP also, which is another benefit. The paper feeder also works better and holds more paper. I’m not sure how the ink will hold out yet, but I’ve made it through one trial without changing cartridges.

The bottom line on the Canon PIXMA iP100 is that I would highly recommend it to anyone needing a small, lightweight and portable printer that will actually work when you need it. At about $250 list (about the same as the HP), it is well worth the money spent.

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication" Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900  San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles
www.litigationtech.com
tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/
WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL

Cost Recovery for Trial Presentation

Trial Presentation Consultant/Trainer Cheryl Evans recently posted a question regarding taxable costs for trial presentation consultants. Just to make sure everyone knows what we are talking about here, the term “taxable” as used here refers to recoverable costs by the prevailing party in a trial. To further explain, these costs are to be added as a reimbursement for expenses of certain things, in addition to the award per the verdict.


There is some discretion as to interpretation, and the Circuits differ in this as well. In short, if Counsel can prepare a compelling motion regarding the benefits realized and the necessity for these services or products, recovery may be granted. I have routinely seen the prep and development phase covered, and have also heard that even the presentation has been covered in some cases.


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 relate to taxation of costs, but allow for a degree of interpretation of what is “reasonably necessary in the prosecution or defense of the lawsuit…”


I generally suggest that my clients handle it the same as they would with demonstrative graphics.


There are several cases cited in Modern Visual Evidence, by Gregory P. Joseph. This book is a very helpful reference and a valuable resource to those in this profession.


Here are a few case citations – the first two from the above-mentioned reference and the third shared by Cheryl Evans and Michael Arkfeld, regarding exemplification as explained by the Seventh Circuit:


“… as permitting an award of the reasonable expense of preparing maps, charts, graphs, photographs, motion pictures, photostats, and kindred materials,” including graphics services and multi-media evidence display systems.


-- Cefalu v. Village of Elk Grove, 211 F.3d 416, 427-428 (7th Cir. 2000)

-- BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Company, No. 86 C 5602, 1992 U.S. Dist.

-- Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72572, 34-36 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 17, 2009). The Court awarded costs for the consultant time and equipment costs in presenting a "multimedia" trial presentation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.


Bottom line – get the book.


By the way, today is the first anniversary of this blawg!

Ted Brooks, President

Litigation-Tech LLC

"Enhancing the Art of Communication"

Member, American Society of Trial Consultants

Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer

415-291-9900 San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles

http://www.litigationtech.com/

tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/

WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL

ADR and the Art of High-Speed Trial Presentation

Recent involvement in a large Construction Mediation, followed by a series of 2-day Chrysler Bankruptcy Arbitrations have served to remind me (along with a couple of my clients, and our opponents) of the true value of thorough preparation, coupled with the absolute necessity of delivering the most efficient and effective trial presentation possible.

Also see: How to Prepare for Shortened Litigation: Mediation, Settlement Conferences, and Expedited Trials

Today’s economy has certainly had an effect on decisions to pursue traditional litigation, versus various forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which are typically perceived as shorter and less costly. While the latter is debatable, the former is generally true. That stated, showing up for a two or three-day proceeding and expecting everyone to follow along while searching for exhibits in boxes, or jumping quickly from binder-to-binder can be a recipe for disaster.

Although the fact-finder may indeed wish to mark up a copy for reference, having the ability to quickly show the “hot spots” on the exhibits is important. Zooming in on a paragraph and highlighting the key text with TrialDirector gives visual cues and direction as to what is important to your case. While you may argue that it is all important, you will likely find the Judge encouraging you to make sure and point out the real important stuff. Failure to do so may be failure to get your message heard and understood.

Preparation for this type of proceeding should not differ from traditional trial preparation. Many cases heard in ADR are of no less value than similar matters heard in court. Just because ADR is chosen as the venue does not mean that preparation should be compromised. In fact, given the shortened time in which the entire case must be presented, it is more important than ever to have everything ready to go. In ADR, a win is still a win, and a loss is still a loss.

Except in perhaps the smallest of matters, it is never a prudent idea to attempt to “save your client some money” by not taking all necessary steps for trial prep, such as scanning of exhibits, videotaping depositions or having demonstrative exhibits created. Neither is it a good idea to attempt to handle this and the trial presentation yourself, unless this is something you do on a regular basis. In any event, while you may have less people billing on the matter, the real value to the case may be compromised. There is a significant difference between someone who does something only occasionally and an expert who does the same thing regularly. Trial presentation is certainly easier these days, but unless you’re doing this full-time, you are at a disadvantage (and risk).

Along the same line, cost does not always equal value. In other words, attempting to again “save your client some money” either by doing things yourself or hiring the “cheapest” service provider available can bring a negative result. In many cases, hiring “the best” you can find brings in another level of professionalism to your trial team. In most cases in which I’ve been retained, I have been able to objectively view the case from a different perspective – more like that of a juror – and have been able to offer valuable insight, contributing to case strategy. You won’t always find this same level of service by shopping for the lowest hourly rate or by working with a large company without knowing the level of experience and qualifications of the individual(s) actually assigned to your case. If you value your client and your own reputation, don’t risk doing them a “favor” by saving a few bucks at the expense of the trial.

ADR can be likened to an Opening Statement and Closing Argument all built into one. That stated, be fully-prepared to deliver your message quickly and clearly. Don’t hesitate to engage the services of others in your firm or to bring in outside consultants when necessary. It is rarely in the best interest of your client to compromise by taking the path of least resistance or lowest cost, while potentially risking the outcome of your case. This reminds me of an old saying…

Also see: How to Prepare for Shortened Litigation: Mediation, Settlement Conferences, and Expedited Trials

Ted Brooks, President
Litigation-Tech LLC
"Enhancing the Art of Communication" Member, American Society of Trial Consultants
Certified inData TrialDirector Trainer
415-291-9900  San Francisco

213-798-6608 Los Angeles
www.litigationtech.com
tbrooks@litigationtech.com

http://trial-technology.blogspot.com/
WINNER: LAW TECHNOLOGY NEWS AWARD FOR MOST INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLOGY DURING A TRIAL