Docstoc

7-2 a.pmd - SDDL - San Diego Defense Lawyers

Document Sample
7-2 a.pmd - SDDL - San Diego Defense Lawyers Powered By Docstoc
					THE UPDATE
                                                                                                                              Summer 2002
                                                                                                                              Volume 7
                                                                                                                              Issue 2


                      San Diego Defense Lawyers Association


                              The Privilege Log: Protecting Privileges in             support the privilege through affidavits or testi-
In This Issue                 Mass Tort Litigation                                    mony, and produce the documents if the trial court
The Privilege Log        1    by Rana M. Siam                                         determines that an in camera review is necessary.
                                                                                      In requiring a party to prove the factual basis for
President’s Message      2    (Part Two, continued from Spring 2002,                  its privilege claims, courts generally look to a
Ins and Outs             2    Volume 7, Issue 1 THE UPDATE)                           showing based on affidavits or equivalent state-
Bottom Line              4       The author has set forth a sample privilege log      ments that address each document at issue. Id. at
What is Retraxit?        5    on page 8. For each privileged document, the log        473; Mervin v. Federal Trade Commission, 591
                              contains all of the information that would be           F.2d 821, 826 (D.C.Cir. 1978) (submission of
Brown Bag Recap          6    required in most jurisdictions in order to protect      affidavit to support privilege claims was sufficient
Objection!               7    the document from discovery by opposing counsel.        to sustain privilege without the necessity of an in
Golf Tournament          7    It follows, of course, that each privilege log must     camera inspection).
                              be tailored to the specific requirements of each           In large document intensive discovery disputes,
SDDL Officers            7    jurisdiction.                                           the court may utilize “an adequately detailed
Membership Info          8                                                            privilege log in conjunction with evidentiary
                                      Defending the Privilege Log
                                           Burden of Proof                            submissions to fill in any factual gaps.” Bowne,
                                                                                      150 F.R.D. at 474. Thus, a privilege log unsup-
                                 The burden of establishing that a privilege          ported by any evidence is insufficient to sustain a
                              applies to a given set of documents or communica-       claim of privilege. In order to preserve the
                              tions is on the party claiming the privilege. In re     appellate record, all evidence submitted to the
                              Grand Jury Investigations, supra, 974 F.2d at           court for consideration should be offered into
                              1070. In order to meet the privilege, a party must      evidence and a ruling either admitting or denying
                              demonstrate that its documents meet the essential       the offer should be obtained and all objections and
                              elements of the claimed privilege. Id. Essentially,     rulings should be included in the reporter’s record.
                              the party asserting the privilege claim must make
                              a prima facie showing that the privilege protects          In conjunction with privilege log submission,
                              the information the party intends to withhold. Id.      affidavits should be submitted by in-house and
                              at 1071. Conversely, the burden of establishing an      outside counsel as evidence that certain documents
                              exception to a claimed privilege shifts to the party    are privileged; they should trace the elements of
                              claiming the exception.                                 the claimed privilege. In re Grand Jury Investiga-
                                                                                      tions, supra, 974 F.2d at 1069-70 (finding that
                                 Either party may request a hearing for a ruling      counsel’s affidavits reciting certain elements of the
                              on objections or claims of privilege. However, only     claimed privilege were sufficient to sustain the
                              the discovering party can bring a motion to             withholding party’s privilege assertion); Rabushka
                              compel answers to specific discovery requests. If       v. Crane Co., 122 F.3d 559, 565 (8th Cir. 1997)
                              neither party secures a hearing, the document at        (withholding party met its burden to prove
                              issue need not be produced. Thus, the discovering       privilege by tendering a detailed privilege log
                              party has the burden of securing a hearing and          stating the basis for each claim of privilege, along
                              prevailing in a ruling on objections and privilege      with an explanatory affidavit written by its general
                              claims, or else risk waiver of its requested discov-    counsel); Construction Products, 73 F.3d at 474
                              ery. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(2). Notably, prior to       (denying withholding party’s privilege claim in
                              setting a hearing on a discovery dispute, the           the glaring absence of any supporting affidavits or
                              Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as many        other supporting documentation); Bowne, 150
                              federal local rules require the parties to confer and   F.R.D. at 473 (indicating that withholding party
                              attempt to resolve the dispute prior to obtaining       should have prepared affidavits by the appropriate
                              court intervention. Id.                                 attorneys setting forth the general nature of the
                                           Evidence Required                          documents withheld, the provenance of the
                                       to Support Privilege Claims                    documents, and their confidential status, if
                                                                                      applicable). Similarly, deposition testimony may
                                Privilege claims must be resolved on formal
                                                                                      also be used as evidence to support privilege
                              motions supported by competent evidence proving
                                                                                      claims and to clarify relationships and facts that
                              the underlying facts. Bowne v. AmBase, supra, 150
                                                                                      may not be clear on the face of the document or
                              F.R.D. at 472. To make a prima facie showing of
                                                                                      the privilege log. Bowne,150 F.R.D. at 474; see
                              the applicability of a privilege, a party must plead
                                                                                      Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71 F.3d 1547, 1550
                              the particular privilege, produce evidence to
                                                                                      (10th Cir. 1995).
                                                                                      Continued on page 3


www.sddl.org
2                                                              Volume 7 · Issue 1


                                      President’s Message                                       As we all know, there have been many changes
    Ins and Outs                      By John R. Clifford                                    in the traditional civil defense practice over the
                                      Drath, Clifford, Murphy, Wennerholm & Hagen            past 10 years, many of which transpired without
                                                                                             our participation. We need to be alert to these
     The board of the San Diego          By all accounts, 2002 remains a strong and
     County Bar Association
                                                                                             issues and participate in the process. One of the
                                      robust year for the civil defense lawyer in San
     elected Christopher Todd as                                                             current issues that are being debated in defense
                                      Diego. In conjunction with our busy practices,
     the organization’s president                                                            organizations involves the “DRI Recommended
                                      SDDL has been busy providing its educational
     for the 2003 term. Todd, a                                                              Case Handling Guidelines for Insurers and Law
                                      programs and in planning social events for the
     civil litigation attorney and                                                           Firms.” This has been a hot topic item as there is
                                      future.
     partner with WINGERT                                                                    an ongoing debate as to whether or not defense
     GREBING BRUBAKER &                  Already this year there have been 3 brown bag       organizations should be involved in an effort
     RYAN, will replace current       seminars that have been well-attended covering         which some see as acquiescing to defense guide-
     President Monty McIntyre as      diverse issues from Appellate Law presented by         lines which arguably can interfere with an
     head of the 16-member            Robert H. Lynn; Special Verdicts and Other Trial       attorneys ethical obligations. Consequently, the
     board. Todd served as the        Related Subjects, presented by Robert Titus; and a
     president of San Diego
                                                                                             revised DRI guidelines include additional lan-
     Defense Lawyers from 1998-
                                      program entitled Jury Consultants provided by          guage to strengthen the fact that guidelines may
     99. Todd will be installed as    Tiffany Denhardt of Jilien J. Rubin & Associates.      not interfere with the ethical obligations of defense
     president along with newly       SDDL also participated in a joint program with         counsel. You can view/copy this document from
     elected board members on         RIMS held on March 28th, which we hope to              the DRI website at: http://www.dri.org/dri/about/
     Dec. 6 at the SDCBA’s            make an annual event. On June 5th, an entertain-       casehandlinghidden.cfm
     “Stepping Up to the Bar”         ing and instructive Trial Evidence seminar was
     event.
                                                                                                In Sacramento, there are two issues, which are
                                      presented at the Grant Hotel. The trial was
                                                                                             currently on the front burner for defense counsel,
                                      presided over by the Honorable Herbert Hoffman
     Bob Harrison, of NEIL,                                                                  which are being monitored by the California
                                      (ret.), and skilled advocacy was presented by
     DYMOTT, PERKINS,                                                                        Defense Counsel (CDC). One issue is to revise
                                      Robert W. Frank and Charles R. Grebing. There
     BROWN & FRANK has                                                                       C.C.P. §437(c) to permit motions for summary
     been inducted as a Fellow of     will be two additional evening seminars presented
                                                                                             adjudication even if that motion does not dispose
     the International Academy of     this year, along with our continuing monthly
                                                                                             of the entire cause of action or affirmative defense.
     Trial Lawyers, which is          brown bag lunches. I strongly encourage you to
                                                                                             The current bill which passed through the Assem-
     limited to 500 members from      attend and obtain your Continuing Legal Educa-
                                                                                             bly and is before the Senate will require a stipula-
     the United States. In addition   tion credits at no cost, and at the same time,
     the Academy includes
                                                                                             tion between plaintiff and defense counsel that the
                                      mingle with your colleagues. Additionally, for
     Fellows from over 30                                                                    motion would contribute to judicial economy.
                                      those that are unable to attend the evening
     countries throughout the         seminars, these are being videotaped and can be           Another current topic involves the tripartite
     world. His is the only           purchased for a nominal amount by contacting our       relationship and potential conflict of interest issues
     general member (those                                                                   that were raised in State Farm v. Federal Insurance
     Fellows actively engaged in
                                      Executive Director, Sandee Rugg.
                                                                                             (1999) 72 Cal. App 4th 1422. The latest news is
     the practice of law) from San       We are always looking for new and interesting       that the State Board of Governors has approved a
     Diego. Also, in January he       topics from our members as well as individuals
     became President-elect of the                                                           comment to Rule 3-310 of the Rules of Profes-
                                      willing to participate. Please contact me or any       sional Conduct and that proposal will move to the
     Association of Southern          member of the Board of Directors to provide input
     California Defense Counsel.                                                             California Supreme Court for approval.
                                      or assistance.
                                                                                                I welcome any comments you have concerning
                                         I am also pleased to announce on the social front   these topics and I strongly encourage all of our
                                      that we have secured The Auld Course for the           members to become active in the issues that affect
                                      SDDL Golf Tournament which be held on Septem-          our daily practice.
                                      ber 27, 2002. Please save the date. If you have any
                                      ideas for sponsors or can assist, please contact
                                      either Billie Jaroszek or Clark Hudson.
                                         On a separate front, SDDL is attempting to
                                      coordinate activities with other defense organiza-
                                      tions primarily DRI and the Southern California
                                      Association of Defense Counsel. We believe it is
                                      important to stay abreast of current developments
                                      and assist our brethren organizations and be
                                      proactive in issues involving our profession. This
                                      year one of our board members will attend the
                                      Northwest/Pacific Regional Defense Leader’s
                                      Conference that is being hosted by the Association
                                      of Southern California Defense Counsel in
                                      conjunction with DRI scheduled for the end of
                                      July. I will have the pleasure of attending the
                                      annual DRI meeting in the fall.



www.sddl.org
                                                               Volume 7 · Issue 1                                                              3

The Privilege Log                                                 If the court rules that the documents are
Continued from page 1                                   not privileged and orders their production, either     Ins and Outs
                                                        appellate jurisdiction under the “collateral order”
  Often, the documents may constitute the only,         doctrine or mandamus may be the proper means to
and certainly the best, evidence substantiating a                                                               Shewry, Stoddard & Van
                                                        challenge the district court’s ruling ordering          Dyke is now SHEWRY &
claim of privilege. Therefore, in addition to the       production of privileged documents. In re Chrysler
privilege log, affidavits, deposition testimony, live                                                           VAN DYKE, LLP. Steve
                                                        Motors Corp., supra, 860 F.2d at 846; In re Ford        Shewry and Michelle Van
testimony, and the documents (submitted under           Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954, 958 (3d Cir. 1997); but        Dyke are the principles.
seal) are proper forms of evidence to support           see, Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 10 F.3d 746, 750
privilege claims. They should be offered at the         (10th Cir. 1993) (dismissed appeal for lack of          Kelly Bull, previously of
hearing to fill in any factual gaps, including          jurisdiction, finding that petitioners were entitled    Greenfield & Bull, LLP, has
outlining the essential elements of the privilege       neither to an interlocutory appeal under the            recently joined the San
asserted.                                               “collateral order” exception, nor to a mandamus         Diego office of
                                                                                                                MURCHISON &
             In Camera Inspection                       review of the district court’s order, which was                       .
                                                                                                                CUMMING She will
                                                        issued after in camera review and compelled             continue to practice general
   The documents themselves may be the only
                                                        production of privileged documents). [A complete        civil litigation defense as
adequate evidence of privilege. If so, then the
                                                        discussion of appellate and mandamus review is          well as insurance bad faith
withholding party must request an in camera
                                                        beyond the scope of this paper.]                        and insurance coverage
inspection to resolve the status of the disputed                                                                matters.
documents. Once (or if) the trial court grants the                         Conclusion
party’s request for an in camera inspection, it must      In mass document productions, time is of the          The LAW OFFICE OF
produce the documents to the trial court in a           essence and an orderly plan of action must be in        ELIZABETH A. SKANE has
sealed wrapper properly indicating the privileges                                                               recently added Jennifer
                                                        place to anticipate and comply with court ordered-      French, 2001 graduate of
asserted for each document.                             discovery schedules, and to preserve information        Thomas Jefferson school of
   Rule 26(b)(5) was intended to help reduce the        protected by privilege. Creating a privilege log in     law, cum laude as an
need for an in camera examination of documents.         a mass document production may appear to be a           associate with the firm.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, 1993 Notes of Advisory             daunting task. However, with careful preparation
Committee 34. In camera procedures should be            and a grasp of the legal and factual issues, you can
used only rarely in discovery disputes. Krenning v.     assert privileges, prepare a detailed privilege log,
Hunter Health Clinic, supra, 166 F.R.D. at 35;          and defend those privileges valiantly.
Mervin v. FTC, supra, 591 F.2d at 826 (submis-
sion of affidavit to support privilege claims was                           AUTHOR
sufficient to sustain privilege without the necessity     Rana M. Siam is an associate at the law firm of
of an in camera inspection).                            Clark, Thomas & Winters in Austin, Texas. Her
   In camera review is not intended to be routinely     principal areas of practice include pharmaceutical
undertaken in lieu of an evidentiary hearing or as      products liability and energy law. She is a member
a substitute for submitting an adequate record to       of DRI.
support privilege claims. Bowne v. AmBase, supra,
150 F.R.D. at 475. See also, Krenning, supra
(denying withholding party’s request to review the
documents in camera absent producing sufficiently

                                                           Thank You
detailed privilege log). Instead, it is intended to
resolve genuine disputes concerning the accuracy
of descriptions for certain withheld documents.
Prior to requesting an in camera review, the
withholding party should ensure that opposing
counsel has complied with the requirements of
Rule 37(a)(2) that it has in good faith conferred or
attempted to confer with the withholding party in               San Diego Defense Lawyers
an attempt to resolve the dispute without court                        would like to thank
intervention. In some circumstances, however, in
camera review may be the best or the only way to                       Brenda Peterson
demonstrate the privileged nature of the docu-
ments.                                                            of Peterson & Associates
                                                                       for sponsoring our
                                                              Brown Bag Luncheon programs
                                                                      held in her offices at:


                                                                530 “B” Street · Suite 350
                                                          San Diego · CA · 92101 · 619.260.1069
                                                                                                                              www.sddl.org
4                                                                 Volume 7 · Issue 1


                                      The Bottom Line                                             (The jury declined to award any Stearman damages.)
    Ins and Outs                                                                                     VERDICT (Baldwin vs. Subcontractors): Baldwin vs.
                                       James Marshall, et al. vs. The Baldwin                     T&M Framing:         Defense verdict; Baldwin vs.
                                      Company, et al.
                                                                                                  Coffman Enterprises: Defense verdict; Baldwin vs.
     KOELLER, NEBEKER,                   COURT/CASE NO.: San Diego Superior Court, Case           Coast Plastering: Defense verdict; Baldwin vs. Spring
     CARLSON & HALUCK has             No. 725825
     added three new attorneys.                                                                   Valley Sheetmetal: Defense verdict; Baldwin vs. Archer
                                         JUDGE: Honorable Kevin A. Enright                        Roofing: $187,066.60; Baldwin vs. Premier Products:
     Austin C. Sung specializes in
     the area of professional            DAYS IN TRIAL: 44                                        $118,578.60; Baldwin vs. Premier Window Products:
     negligence, insurance               DELIBERATIONS: 7 days                                    $113,845.10; Baldwin vs. Sunair Aluminum:
     coverage and construction                                                                    $72,301.40.
                                         NATURE OF CASE: Construction defect case
     defects. Mr. Sung has            involving 54 single family homes within the Tierra             VERDICT (Sunair vs.Bathco): Defense verdict.
     handled various aspects of       subdivision of the Paloma master development in San            COMMENTS: The gross award to Plaintiffs is
     discovery and pre-trial                                                                      subject to offsets for pre-trial settlements by other
                                      Marcos. The Tierra subdivision represents 22% of the
     preparation and has                                                                          parties. That will, in turn, reduce the net awards against
                                      homes in the entire action. The trial of the remaining
     successfully resolved cases                                                                  the subcontractors.
     for clients through summary      subdivisions will follow. The Plaintiffs claimed repair
     judgment motions. Robert         and relocation costs of $3,767,386.14, plus investigation      On Baldwin’s cross-complaint for indemnity, Baldwin
     W. Bradley specializes in the    costs of $234,315.00 (total claim of $4,001,701.10). The    was found to be 50% at fault for the gross award for
     areas of complex multi-party     Plaintiffs claimed that all roofs needed to be removed      roof defects ($187,066.60), as well as 50% at fault for
     litigation, general liability,   and replaced, all windows had to be removed, repaired       the gross award for window defects ($304,725.10). It
     insurance coverage, bad faith    and reinstalled and that all of the stucco needed to be     was found to be 100% at fault for all other damages
     litigation, and construction     patched, sandblasted and re-coated with an elastomeric      awarded to the Plaintiffs.
     law. He has also handled a       coating in addition to other lesser alleged defects.           By stipulation of the parties, there will be a bench
     variety of civil cases              Baldwin, the Developer/General Contractor,               trial of the reserved issue of Baldwin’s defense costs to
     including personal injury,       contended that the reasonable cost of repair was only       be awarded against those subcontractors who did not
     wrongful death, sexual           approximately $188,000.00 and that relocation was not       obtain defense verdicts on Baldwin’s cross-complaint. It
     harassment, premises             necessary during repairs.                                   is estimated that Baldwin may claim approximately
     liability, municipal law, and
                                         Baldwin cross-complained for express indemnity           $700,000 in defense costs for the Tierra subdivision.
     public agency law. Fort
     Zackary practices in the         against the following subcontractors: Archer Roofing,          Those subcontractors receiving defense verdicts on
     areas of construction defect     Premier Products, Premier Window products, Sunair           Baldwin’s cross-complaint have pending claims for
     law, developer defense and       Aluminum, Spring Valley Sheetmetal, T&M Framing,            attorneys fees and costs against Baldwin.
     insurance defense. His prior     Coffman Enterprises, Coast Plastering.                      Continued on page 5
     litigation experience               In addition to seeking full indemnity for all damages
     includes service as a Special    awarded to the Plaintiffs, Baldwin sought a proportion-
     Assistant U.S. Attorney in       ate share of its $2.75 to $3.1 million in defense costs
     the Border Crimes Section of     incurred in defending the entire action. Sunair Alumi-
     the San Diego U.S.               num also cross-complained against Bathco for equitable
     Attorney’s Office prosecuting    indemnity.
     felony drug and immigration
     offenses in Federal District        COUNSEL: Plaintiffs: Steven Strauss, Esq. & Victor
     Court.                           Felix, Esq. of Procopio, Hargreaves & Savitch
                                         Baldwin: Mark Dillon, Esq., Jill Skinner, Esq.,
                                      Steven Tee, Esq. & Anne Bickel, Esq. of Gatzke, Dillon
                                      & Ballance
                                         Archer Roofing: Robert Titus, Esq. of Stutz,
                                      Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz; Patricia Ryan, Esq.
                                      of Horton & Ryan
                                         Premier Products: Barry Schultz, Esq. of Sullivan,
                                      Wertz, McDade & Wallace
                                         Premier Window Products: David Bregman, Esq. of
                                      Klinedinst, Fliehman & McKillop
                                         Sunair Aluminum: Michael San Filipo, Esq. of Law
                                      Offices of Jeffrey Hamilton; Quyen Khuon, Esq. of
                                      Waters, McClusky & Boehle
                                         Bathco: James Stout, Esq. of Bremer & Whyte
                                         Spring Valley Sheetmetal: Peter Hughes, Esq. of the
                                      Hughes Law Firm
                                         Coffman Enterprises: David Hausfeld, Esq. of
                                      Brownwood, Chazen & Cannon; Timothy Lucas, Esq. of
                                      Parker Stanbury
                                         Coast Plastering: Nannette Souhrada, Esq. of
                                      Campbell, Souhrada & Volk; Timothy Lucas, Esq. of
                                      Parker Stanbury
                                         T&M Framing: Timothy Lucas, Esq. of Parker
                                      Stanbury
                                         VERDICT (Plaintiffs vs. Baldwin): $866,902.05
www.sddl.org
                                                                 Volume 7 · Issue 1                                                                  5

The Bottom Line                                              A retraxit is a judgment on the merits prevent-
Continued from page 4                                     ing subsequent action on the dismissed claim.            Ins and Outs
                                                          Invoking many of the same principles as res
Merrilynn Clark and William Clark vs.                     judicata, retraxit only bars future action on causes
Theodore G. Obenchain, M.D., and Theodore G.                                                                        KLINEDINST, FLIEHMAN
                                                          of action that have been dismissed with prejudice
Obenchain, M.D., Inc.                                                                                               & MCKILLOP, P.C. has
                                                          between the same parties or those in privity with         opened offices in Orange
COURT/CASE NO.: GIN 006238                                them. Rice v. Crow (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 725,             County and Los Angeles and
JUDGE: Hon. Michael M. Anello                             733-34.                                                   added Jennifer D. Merta is
NATURE OF CASE: Medical Malpractice/Neurosur-                                                                       their newest associate.
                                                             Retraxit does not operate to eliminate every
gery                                                                                                                Merta’s primary responsibili-
                                                          claim that may arise out of a particular event or
PLAINTIFF COUNSEL: David D. Miller, Esq., MILLER                                                                    ties have included conduct-
                                                          series of events. In Morris v. Blank (2001) 94            ing legal research projects
& JAMES                                                   Cal.App.4th 823, Morris filed a lawsuit against           and preparing case briefs.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Daniel S. Belsky, Esq., Belsky           Blank in superior court. The case arose out of an
& Associates                                              auto accident with disputed liability. Subsequently,      Teresa M. Beck, a partner at
TYPE OF INCIDENT: Meningioma surgery leading to           Blank filed her own claim against Morris in               LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON &
brain damage and paralysis (triplegia)                    municipal court. Months later, Blank settled her          CERCOS was recently
SETTLEMENT DEMAND:                                        municipal court action with Morris’ insurer. She          elected Board Chair of
                                                          filed a dismissal with prejudice in return for            Travelers Aid Society of San
SETTLEMENT OFFER: Defendants served plaintiffs
                                                          $1,200.                                                   Diego, a non-profit corpora-
with CCP §998 offers for zero dollars and a waiver of
                                                                                                                    tion which provides aid to
costs                                                        Blank then filed a Motion for Summary Judg-            travelers in need, including
VERDICT: Defense                                          ment in Morris’ superior court action, claiming the       business travelers, battered
TRIAL LENGTH: 7 Days                                      action was now barred by retraxit. The trial court        women, and the homeless.
JURY OUT: 1 Hour                                          agreed, apparently because both actions involved          Ms. Beck was also recently
                                                          the same subject matter. However, the appellate           elected Board Chair of Icarus
Ron Klein vs. Kevin Metros, M.D.                                                                                    Puppet Company, a non-
COURT/CASE NO.:
                                                          court ruled that retraxit did not apply to this
                                                                                                                    profit arts organization which
                                                          situation. The two lawsuits involved different torts      brings cultural arts to the
JUDGE: Hon. Michael Orfield
                                                          and different causes of action. Since Morris’ claim       San Diego community.
NATURE OF CASE: Medical Malpractice                       was not independently barred by either res judicata
PLAINTIFF COUNSEL: John Mittelman, Esq.,                  or collateral estoppel, summary judgment was              LINCOLN, GUSTAFSON &
DEFENSE COUNSEL: James D. Boley, Esq., NEIL,              reversed. Id. at 828-832.                                 CERCOS was recently
DYMOTT, PERKINS, BROWN & FRANK                                                                                      named one of San Diego top
                                                             Nevertheless, retraxit can be an effective shield      fund raisers for the MS
TYPE OF INCIDENT: Improperly performed right              for defendants. For example, in a medical mal-            Society. With the help of its
elbow arthroplasty resulting in posterolateral rotatory   practice action involving the failure to timely           lawyers, staff, clients, and
instability                                               diagnose a now terminal disease, the defendant            fellow law firms and
SETTLEMENT DEMAND: $175,000                               will almost always seek to include the current            lawyers, the firm raised more
SETTLEMENT OFFER: Waiver of costs                         action and any prospective wrongful death action          than $25,000 for the MS
VERDICT: Defense                                          in a universal settlement agreement. Assuming the         Society.
TRIAL LENGTH: 5 days                                      settlement agreement is signed by all of the
                                                          necessary principles and includes all possible
JURY OUT: 10 Minutes
                                                          causes of action arising out of the offending
Continued on page 7                                       occurrence, the dismissal with prejudice would
                                                          operate as a retraxit. The doctor would then have
                                                          an efficient means of short-circuiting any plaintiffs
                                                          who got inspired for more litigation after the
                                                          patient died.
                                                             In addition, retraxit could come into play in a
                                                          case involving two co-defendants who cross-
                                                          complained against each other. In this hypotheti-
                                                          cal, the co-defendants decide to present a united
                                                          front and agree to dismiss, with prejudice, their
                                                          cross-complaints against each other. Subsequently,
“What is Retraxit,                                        one co-defendant settles with the plaintiff. The
and Why Should I Care?”                                   stubborn remaining co-defendant goes to trial and
by David P. Burke                                         loses big. When the losing co-defendant tries to
Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank                      assert a claim for indemnity against the settling
  Retraxit is a relatively obscure, but also some-        co-defendant, retraxit would bar the indemnity
what useful defense tool. At common law, retraxit         claim.
was “a voluntary renunciation by plaintiff in open           As the examples above demonstrate, retraxit
court of his suit and cause thereof, and by it            will not present itself too often in defense strategy,
plaintiff forever loses his action.” (Black’s Law         but it should be kept in mind as an efficient means
Dict. (5th ed. 1979) p. 1183). To put it more             of disposing of cases that have essentially already
practically, retraxit has the same legal effect as a      been decided and would otherwise linger unneces-
dismissal with prejudice.                                 sarily.
                                                                                                                                  www.sddl.org
6                                                               Volume 7 · Issue 1


                                     SDDL Brown Bag Series Recap                                The above questions and more were answered
    Ins and Outs                                                                             well past the normal lunch hour by our guest
                                     “Special Verdicts and Other                             speaker Ms. Denhardt who was questioned and
                                     Trial Related Subjects”                                 probed by numerous defense lawyers (so out of
     Joining FARMER & CASE           by Ian Williamson
     are: Gina C. Haggerty,
                                                                                             character for us all) into disclosing some “tricks-
                                     Stutz, Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz              of-the-trade.” Held at Peterson & Associates
     Southwestern University
     School of Law, J.D., 2001,         On May 23,                                           (thank you Brenda), Ms. Denhardt discussed the
     Recipient, CALI “Excellence     Robert Titus of                                         various roles jury consultants can play, from pre-
     for the Future”, Interviewing   Stutz, Gallagher,                                       deposition to closing argument.
     Counseling and Negotiation,     Artiano, Shinoff &                                         For example, arranging focus groups and
     Spring, 2001; Susan             Holtz led a brown-
     Filipovic, Tulane University
                                                                                             profiling your case may be key in how you present
                                     bag seminar on                                          your case and pick a jury. Focus groups can range
     School of Law (J.D., cum
     laude, 1998), formerly with
                                     the evolution of                                        from a three-hour, one-attorney session to a full
     Neil, Dymott and Lisa           the Special Verdict                                     day 24-person panel, giving two attorneys (one
     Parella, Touro College Jacob    form in complex                                         playing the role of plaintiff’s counsel) an opportu-
     D. Fuchsberg Law Center         cases. Fresh from                                       nity to battle it out and supply abbreviated jury
     (J.D., magna cum laude,         the trial of                                            instructions. If neither work for you, Ms. Denhardt
     1989) has joined the firm’s     Marshall et al v.                                       can “custom” design one for your client’s purpose
     Las Vegas office, LAW           Baldwin, Mr. Titus                                      and price range. Typically, panels will “deliberate”
     OFFICES OF ANTHONY T.           discussed the use                                       and spend time critiquing the facts, the law, and
     CASE, as an associate.          of the matrix-style                                     you. But maybe you only want to know how your
     CAMPBELL, SOUHRADA
                                     jury verdict for assigning                              client may come across at trial. Show an edited
     & VOLK announces that Mr.       damages to multiple plaintiffs on numerous issues.      version of a deposition video, and wait for the
     Shawn Robinson, Mr. Scott       He also discussed the use of a matrix jury form for     comments to follow. From the stories told during
     Stonehocker, and Ms. Eileen     assigning liability on an indemnity cross-com-          this program, whichever way is chosen, expect the
     Luttrell have joined the firm   plaint. Jurors use (or maybe misuse) of the forms       unexpected. Panels will enlighten you on what
     as associate attorneys. Mr.     to allocate damages contrary to instructions was        your case lacks, where it is strong, and what they
     Robinson will staff the San     addressed. There were several questions regarding       wanted to hear or be told. They will even critique
     Diego Office and Mr.            the use of the verdict form’s contents for post-trial   your diagrams that you think are so straight
     Stonehocker and Ms. Luttrell    motions.
     will staff the Las Vegas
                                                                                             forward, but allude every member of the panel.
     Office.                            Mr. Titus provided hints and suggestions for the        A jury consultant can also develop a “juror
                                     preparation of verdict forms. He also discussed         profile” sheet characterizing the aspects of a
     Carolyn P. Gallinghouse         wording of certain questions on three different         “good” juror and a “bad” juror. This can aid in
     joined MAXIE                    verdict forms that were key to the defense presen-
     RHEINHEIMJER
                                                                                             selecting, or more importantly, deselecting a
                                     tation of the case. In summary, counsel are well-       potential juror. Do you really want the “long-
     STEPHENS & VREVICH at
     the beginning of the year.
                                     advised to thoroughly consider post-trial use of the    haired hippie” on the jury? How about an attor-
                                     verdict form before it is drafted. Matrices are         ney? Ms. Denhardt’s answer: Maybe. The hippie
                                     useful tools in complex matters.                        may know everything about pollen and mold. Or
                                        Approximately 20 members attended this               maybe your case is so “law-driven” that an
                                     informative seminar. Thanks to Robert Titus and         attorney on the panel may help keep the other
                                     Brenda Peterson of Peterson & Associates Court          jurors focused on the law during deliberation.
                                     Reporting for providing their generous hospitality.        During voir dire, have the consultant look for
                                                                                             “leaders” According to Ms. Denhardt, it is
                                                                                             generally the tallest male with the most social
                                                                                             clout (i.e., prestigious job, educated, friendly, and
                                     “Jury Consultants”                                      articulate.) Unless the trial is going to last longer
                                     by Kelly Boruszewski                                    than a few days, the jury dynamics change. The
                                     Stutz, Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz              cost for consulting services can range from $1,500
                                                                                             to $10,000. Depending on the trial’s outcome, this
                                        You smile. She smiles. You ask questions, and        service may prove to be the least expensive part of
                                     argue at the close. She sits, watching, nodding         the legal process. Still too much? Call your parents
                                     with slight approval. No, its not your mother, its      and present your case. According to Ms. Denhardt,
                                     Juror #5, and over the past several days you            95% of the jury poll is over the age of 65.
                                     established a rapport with her and other members
                                     of the jury. The case is yours, so you thought. Why        You may want a jury consultant just to find the
                                     did the jury come to a plaintiff’s verdict: Was it      “golden egg” in the potential jury panel: the
                                     your tie? Was the hem too short, too long? Did the      elusive “tort reformer.” How do you spot a tort
                                     jurors even read your instructions that some poor       reformer? If you went to the meeting, you know. If
                                     associate spent days preparing? Before another          you did not, maybe you should give Ms. Denhardt
                                     client asks you, “What happened?”, maybe a call         a call at 619/233-6001before your next trial. In the
                                     to Ms. Tiffany Denhardt is in order.                    end, it may be worth your client’s time and money.



www.sddl.org
                                                                Volume 7 · Issue 1                                                        7

OBJECTION!!!                                             SDDL Golf Tournament -
By Robert J. Walters                                     September 27, 2002
Grace Brandon Hollis LLP
                                                            The San Diego
   On June 5, 2002, SDDL members were treated            Defense Lawyers will
to an informative and entertaining evening of            be sponsoring a
lawyering extraordinaire. The event: “TRIAL              charity golf tourna-
EVIDENCE (All You Ever Wanted to Know But                ment on September
Were Afraid to Ask!) held at the U.S. Grant Hotel.       27, 2002. The
This program is part of SDDL’s ongoing goal to           Juvenile Diabetes
provide practical instruction to its members of          Research Foundation
various subjects designed to improve legal skills.       is the charity the
Attendees received 2 hour MCLE credit and a              tournament will
helpful handout of a table of typical objections         sponsor. The tourna-                                        SDDL Officers
with statutory basis and recommended use. This           ment will be hosted at The Auld Course. We will
program included a trial demonstration on “How           have a four person Scramble Format, with awards,                President
to Object, When to Object and Why.” The present-         prizes and dinner to follow the golf. Registration          John R. Clifford
ers were the Honorable Herbert B. Hoffman of             forms will be sent out in the very near future.              Vice-President
Private Dispute Resolution; Charles R. Grebing of        Space for the tournament will be limited to the              Peter S. Doody
Wingert, Grebing, Brubaker & Ryan; and Bob               first 144 golfers to sign up.
Frank of Neil, Dymott, Perkins, Brown & Frank.                                                                           Secretary
                                                            The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation                  Dennis Aiken
   Attendees saw a mock direct and cross-examina-        (JDRF) was begun in 1970 by parents of children                 Treasurer
tion of a witness named Jack Daniels, played by          with the disease. They understood that managing           Anna T. Amundson
SDDL President, John Clifford, a truck driver            juvenile diabetes was not the answer. The only
from Oklahoma who allegedly ran over an                  acceptable answer - cure it. And they also under-               Directors
intoxicated pedestrian either standing at or             stood, that only intensive research would yield a         Robert E. Gallagher
crossing an intersection in scenic Pacific Beach         cure.                                                      Clark R. Hudson
around dusk on a December day. Bob Frank,                                                                           Billie J. Jaroszek
                                                            JDRF is the world’s leading nonprofit fund               Coleen H. Lowe
represented Mr. Daniels (with true to life southern
                                                         raising organization for diabetes research. In FY          Timothy D. Lucas
accident and red-neck twang), and conducted the
                                                         2001, JDRF allocated 87 cents of every dollar              Norman A. Ryan
direct. Retired Judge Hoffman presided over the
                                                         directly to research and education about research.        Christopher J. Welsh
script - er, examination, and very judiciously
fielded objections by able defense counsel, Charles         We are looking forward to an outstanding
Grebing.                                                 tournament supporting a worthy cause. Save the
                                                         date on your calendars today!!!
   The authenticity would have been complete but
for the number of objections (easily 10 or more a
segment) and the rulings, which were designed
purely to illustrate the types of objections that
might be made, providing further opportunity for         The Bottom Line
attendees to participate in Q&A regarding appro-         Continued from page 5
priateness of particular objections and/or ruling.       Stephen Ward vs. Gary Boone, M.D.
After the fifth objection - fifth in a series that had   COURT/CASE NO.: GIC 758349
been overruled - Mr. Grebing demonstrated an
important trial technique following ruling by the        JUDGE: Honorable E. Mac Amos, Jr.
Court: an appropriate response, such as, “Thank          NATURE OF CASE: Medical Malpractice
you, Your Honor,” with a sincere smile. This alone       PLAINTIFF COUNSEL: Mark T. Brisbois, Esq., LAW
was worth the cost of admission. Mr. Grebing also        OFFICES OF MARK T. BRISEBOIS
conducted the cross examination, to which Mr.            DEFENSE COUNSEL: Michael I. Neil, Esq., NEIL,
Frank fared no better with his objections.               DYMOTT, PERKINS, BROWN & FRANK
   Bottom line: Whether an attendee agreed with          TYPE OF INCIDENT: Failure to diagnose a right ring
the appropriateness of each objection or the ruling,     finger tendon rupture at the distal joint with a subse-
it was an invaluable way to illustrate the impor-        quent left wrist fracture
tance of being prepared for making an objection to       SETTLEMENT DEMAND: Plaintif f attorney asked jury
an inappropriate line of questioning and deciding        for $785,000 and then offered to settle for $125,000
whether the objection itself would be appropriate        during trial
or ill-advised.                                          SETTLEMENT OFFER: 1998 Offer in the amount of
                                                         $29,999.99
                                                         VERDICT: Defense
                                                         TRIAL LENGTH: 5 Days
                                                         JURY OUT: 2 Hours




                                                                                                                             www.sddl.org
8                                                                                                 Volume 7 · Issue 1



    Membership
    Information                                                  LEGAL REPROGRAPHICS INC.
                                                                 FAST • Q UALITY S ERVICE • DAY                           OR    NI G H T
                                           P H O T O C O P Y I N G   •   D O C U M E N T   I M A G I N G   •   G R A P H I C   D E S I G N



       Membership is open to
    any attorney who is prima-
    rily engaged in the defense
    of civil litigants. Member-
    ship dues are: $ 90 for
    attorneys in practice less
    than one year and $120 for
    attorneys in practice more
    than one year. Applications
    are available on the web at
    www.sddl.org.




                                                  Legal Reprographics Inc. has successfully                                                           110 West C Street

                                           committed itself to remain the leading photocopying,
                                                                                                                                                          Suite 1600
                                             digital imaging and graphic design service bureau
                                                     for the legal industry in San Diego.                                                                 San Diego

                                             We have dedicated our resources in management,
                                                                                                                                                          California
                                              sales and production to provide the best quality
                                                      product and service in our market.                                                                    92101


                                                                                                                                                     phone: 619.234.0660

                                                                           bou
                                                               Learn more about us!
                                                                                                                                                    facsimile: 619.234.0668


                                                                                                                                                     sales@legalrepro.com

                                                                                                                                             www.
                                                                                                                                               w.
                                                                                                                                             www
                                                                                                                                                       pro
                                                                                                                                                legalrepro
                                                                                                                                                     www.legalrepro.com



       THE UPDATE is published for
    the mutual benefit of the SDDL
    membership, a non-profit
    association composed of defense
    attorneys, judges and persons allied
    with the profession as suppliers of
    goods or services.
       Views and opinions expressed in
    THE UPDATE are those of the
    authors and not necessarily those of
    SDDL. Products and services
    advertised are paid adver tisements
    and not endorsed by SDDL.
       We welcome the submission of
    articles by our members on topics of
    general interest to our membership.
    Please submit material to Clark R.
    Hudson at Neil, Dymott, Perkins,
    Brown & Frank, 1010 Second
    Avenue, Suite 2500, San Diego, CA
    92101. Phone: 619- 238-1712,
    Fax: 619- 238-1562,
    E-mail: chudson@neil-dymott.com.




www.sddl.org

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:11/7/2011
language:English
pages:8