ILNews

Noyes: A short phone call can change the dynamic of a case

May 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Jon Noyes

During the summer of last year, I was supporting litigation in a rather unfortunate product liability case. The product at issue had exploded into our client’s face, but the explosion caused the product to shatter into pieces so tiny that only a small portion could be recovered. The rest of the product turned to dust. As time pressed on, it became painfully clear that we simply did not possess enough of the recovered product for our expert to complete the testing he needed to opine that the product was defective. After all, there cannot be a product liability case without a product.

noyes Noyes

It was only after going back to the drawing board that we found a solution. In initial interrogatories, we asked the defendant whether there had been any other complaints of the same type of product exploding during use. As it turned out, there were two. I entered the individuals’ names into the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system hoping that there would be something, anything, giving us a lead as to where to go next. Luckily, one of the other individuals filed suit against the same defendant in another district.

I called the plaintiff’s attorney on the other case hoping to trade some ideas on moving forward. The attorney was also faced with the problem of a disintegrating product, but had found an expert with the specialized knowledge required to render an opinion. He had even deposed one of the defendants. The attorney gave me the name of his expert, we traded non-protected information, and I directed him to some cases useful in defeating an oncoming dispositive motion. Our firm got in touch with the expert and hired him. The rest is history.

The point of this story is that a challenging issue can often be resolved by simply communicating with an attorney that has encountered the same issue or something similar in the past. All it takes is picking up the phone and making the call. Attorneys who have experienced these tough issues can help with propounding targeted discovery seeking seemingly elusive documents, providing deposition transcripts of adversarial parties and their experts, forming legal arguments, and finding useful cases or briefs needed to win motion practice. These attorneys may also have the added value of hindsight if the issue was disposed of in their case.

Most importantly, it never hurts to hear someone else’s perspective on similar issues. Another attorney may be analyzing similar factual and legal issues, but have a different perspective regarding the best way to move forward. Hearing the attorney’s perspective and adding your own to the discussion helps both parties round out strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. In fact, it can be a cost-effective and efficient form of litigation support.

There are a number of ways to make use of other attorneys in this way. Listservs are the most obvious medium. They often draw from large pools of attorneys and can cover issues ranging from broad litigation strategy to specialized bodies of law. However, Listservs are only as strong as their members. If the majority of the members are active, then Listservs can thrive. If the majority of members are inactive, or relegate Listserv emails to a rarely visited folder, then its utility can diminish greatly. Moreover, although a Listserv email can provide some insight into a difficult issue, a personal conversation may be a more productive medium for a fluid exchange of ideas.

A combined use of discovery and electronic court records is another way to track down support. Interrogatories requesting the names of other complainants, or captions of other cases, concerning similar issues provide a cost-effective means of securing this information. However, opposing parties are often reluctant to provide this information and, in fact, may object on relevance grounds. For individuals and smaller businesses, a quick search on Odyssey or PACER may also prove fruitful. These references allow attorneys to see whether an opposing party is involved in any other lawsuits in participating Indiana counties or at the federal level. PACER is especially helpful because it also allows individuals to conveniently download documents from a case’s docket at a reasonable cost.

These methods make for great jumping-off points, but the onus is on the attorney to make the phone call. After all, the practice of law is, at its heart, a social profession that builds from communications with others. We use authority and communications with our clients and witnesses to make arguments to the court and our adversaries. Opinions are crafted and settlements are agreed on from those arguments; the former become new authority. Other attorneys then use that new authority and the cycle continues. Networking with other attorneys on substantive issues is a natural extension of this cycle as it allows us to broaden our base of communication and, in doing so, better serve our clients. All it takes is some elbow grease and a phone call.•

__________

Jon Noyes earned his J.D., cum laude, from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 2013. Jon joined Wilson Kehoe Winingham as an associate attorney in 2013. The opinions expressed are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT