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

May 7, 2014
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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.