deposition

81 – Mallory Storey Ulmer – Baptism by Fire: When Tenacity Defeats Tenure

In this episode of the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with attorney Mallory Storey Ulmer from the Walton Law Firm in Auburn, Alabama. Mallory is a young lawyer who recently achieved a $15 million settlement for her clients in a not-so-plaintiff-friendly state. She and Michael discuss her path to such early success, the details of how she worked up the case, and her advice for other young lawyers who want to make a big impact on a big case.

They begin the episode with a bit on Mallory’s background. After working as a paralegal for 8 years, she decided to go to law school with the intention of becoming an insurance defense lawyer. While in law school, she received a prestigious internship at a plaintiff firm and fell in love with plaintiff work, stating “once you’re on the right side, you can’t switch over.” She and Michael then discuss the emotional toll of plaintiff work, especially in a state like Alabama that’s “no plaintiff’s paradise,” but agree the satisfaction of representing people who need it most can’t be beat (as long as you have the right mindset).

This leads Michael to ask Mallory what she’s done to develop her skillset. She says that one of the best decisions she made was joining an excellent firm with a great reputation. Walton Law Firm has robust systems, great lawyers, and makes education a top priority. She’s been able to learn from some of the best minds in the legal industry both in her office and through a wide variety of legal seminars.

While these opportunities helped build her knowledge base, she and Michael agree at some point you just have to jump in and start trying some cases (or as Mallory calls it, “baptism by fire.”) Michael also notes the importance of networking with other lawyers, to which Mallory agrees. Because of her networking and impressive resume of cases, she is now being invited to speak more often at legal conventions.

Next, the pair jumps into the nitty gritty of the $15,000,000 case Mallory recently settled. While she can’t share too many details due to a confidentiality agreement, she agrees to share what she can within those boundaries. This case had an incredibly complex liability sequence, which stemmed from a series of car wrecks and resulted in catastrophic injuries to her client. In fact, her client’s crash occurred when the defendant driver was not driving a commercial vehicle, further complicating the regulatory guidelines for the company.

Another difficult aspect of this case concerns the venue: Alabama, which is no “plaintiff’s paradise” and has contributory negligence, similar to North Carolina as discussed in our episode with Karonnie Truzy. In short, this means if the client is ANY part at fault for the wreck (even 1%), they cannot receive any compensation. This causes worry in any case, but in a case of this size, Mallory knew she needed a plan to combat this defense if the case went to trial.

She then describes a genius argument of wanton (willful) conduct which would have taken away the contributory negligence defense. While she was never able to use the argument because the case settled, this is an incredibly impressive strategy she plans to “keep in her pocket” for future use.

After discussing the importance of discovery and depositions in the case, Mallory shares why she decided to frame the case as a “systems failure.” This boils down to the fact that juries don’t like to award a large verdict against one driver; they’d much rather award a large verdict to a company where the driver was a victim as well.

Michael and Malorie then have a brief conversation about why it’s necessary to work with others (even if you don’t agree). This starts with politics and ends with an astute observation from Mallory about how this also applies to defense lawyers.

Moving back to Mallory’s case, Michael asks how Mallory found rules and systems to apply to her case when the defendant was not driving a commercial vehicle at the time of the crash. She decided to fall back on the company’s materials, training, and supervision. Regardless of the type of vehicle the defendant was driving, those standards should still apply.

Michael chimes in that his firm’s strategy for a case like this is “compared to what?” He will look at what other similar companies do and argue that while something may not be a regulation, it is certainly the industry standard. Mallory agrees with this strategy and adds that those publications are perfect for getting excellent sound bites in depositions and appealing to an educated jury pool who may sympathize with business owners but understand companies should care about and know these things.

The episode concludes with Mallory’s tips for other lawyers who get a big case like hers. Her first piece of advice is to posture aggressively from the beginning, meaning to act like you’re taking the case to trial. This is especially true in a case with large damages because there’s too much at stake. She insists that this is scary for defense lawyers who don’t want to try the case. Her second piece of advice is to “prepare, prepare, prepare.” She’s found this shuts out any fear that may creep in. It takes a LOT of time and energy, but it has always worked to her advantage as the defense is never as prepared as she is.

Mallory’s last piece of advice is to know what you don’t know, and don’t be afraid to pull somebody else in if you need help. She urges other young lawyers to not be afraid of “looking stupid,” and be willing to spend the money you need to on experts and co-counsel. “You will most likely earn that back three-fold, and you’ll be glad you did it.” In the end, pulling in people who are experienced to guide you will result in a better fee for you and a better result for your client. Then next time, you can use what you learned, and you may not need to get as many people involved.

If you’d like to get in touch with Mallory to discuss a case, ask her to speak, or to learn more about this case, you can reach her by email at mallory@waltonlaw.net, or by phone at 334-321-3000. She’s happy to talk strategy or help in any way.

This podcast episode also covers the importance of discovery and depositions in Mallory’s case, proposed Texas House Bill 19, why you should try to work with defense attorneys (and what to do when they’re unbearable), Mallory’s approach to jury research, and so much more.

 

Guest Bio:

Mallory Storey Ulmer is an attorney at Walton Law Firm, P.C., in Auburn, Alabama. Prior to joining Walton Law Firm, P.C., Mallory gained experience in whistleblower, fraud, and employment litigation while working at Beasley Allen Law Firm, with some of those cases gaining national attention on merit. Mallory’s current practice is focused on representing victims in personal injury litigation, including the areas of wrongful death, motor vehicle and trucking litigation. She has experience handling cases in the Southeast and Midwest at state and federal court levels. Mallory recently obtained a $15 million settlement in a contested liability case arising from a crash that caused catastrophic injuries to our client.

Mallory is an advocate of the Alabama Head Injury Foundation, which provides resources for members of our communities affected by traumatic brain injuries, and she is passionate about representing people who have been seriously injured and families of those killed as a result of the negligence of others.

Mallory and her husband, Dr. Matthew J. Ulmer, and their daughter, Amory, reside in Auburn. They enjoy traveling, visiting with family, finding good local eateries, and being outdoors.

 

66 – Dorothy Clay Sims & Dr. Oregon Hunter – The Lawyer-Doctor Duo: Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with attorney Dorothy Clay Sims and Dr. Oregon Hunter to discuss their research on defense-paid medical witnesses. They’ll discuss how the pair became involved in this research, Dorothy’s book “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors,” Dr. Hunter’s published study on the subject, and take an in-depth look at Dorothy’s favorite tactics for exposing deception in defense doctors.

The episode begins with a brief overview of what Dorothy and Dr. Hunter each do and how they became involved in it. Dr. Hunter focuses on watching video tapes of defense medical exams and generating charts of everything the “expert” lied about in those statements. In his initial study, he’s sad to say they lied or misrepresented the facts 100% of the time.

Dorothy explains how she used to have a large worker’s comp practice in Florida when she noticed a pattern – 60 of her clients were found to be malingerers by a Harvard-educated, smooth talking defense doctor. He was giving them all the same test, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Dorothy decided to sit down with the doctor who first created the test and found that the defense doctor was completely misrepresenting the results of the test. She even got the doctor who created the test to sign an affidavit saying, “If he was a student, I’d flunk him.”

This sparked a deep interest in the subject, and she began researching other tests to see how they’ve been manipulated to serve the interests of the defense. As her work gained more attention, she began receiving phone calls from David Ball himself telling her, “You’ve got to write a book, dammit. You’ve got to do it!” So, she complied and wrote “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors,”which Michael describes as “the Bible” for any case where you have a doctor on the other side.

Dorothy goes on to share some of her more shocking findings, from 40% of defense doctors lying about their degrees, to a doctor who was fired for stealing from a poor patient’s medical fund to pay for prostitutes. She also shares some creative resources she uses to find this information and implores all plaintiff attorneys listening to do their due diligence whenever there’s a doctor on the other side trying to discredit their client.

Dorothy then shares her detailed, organized method for marking up her depo notes, allowing her to go into every defense doctor deposition prepared with the pertinent information (and a record of their lies). She has now compiled 30,000 pages of information on thousands of defense doctors, which she is willing to share with any plaintiff lawyer interested.

The conversation shifts to Dr. Oregon Hunter, whose published study on the subject.  He explains how if you look at the medical exams from defense doctors, they will appear at face value as an exam of a perfectly healthy person. But when he watches the video tape of the exam, all he can say is, “Oh my god.” He goes on to share countless examples of doctors who claimed they conducted a test, but either didn’t conduct the test at all or were so sloppy about it that there’s no way they could actually tell if the client was injured or not. He also shares how they’ll often use templates which contain information that has nothing to do with the person they’re examining. For example, a patient’s ankles were described as “normal,” but there was just one issue – the patient’s legs had both been amputated.

Michael then asks Dorothy, what are some other things we need to look out for when they’re “trying to pull the wool over our eyes?” Dorothy shares her experience with brain scans and the defense doctor showing slices of the scan which do not show damage, when there are other slices which show the damage much clearer. She continues with other examples of similar practices with different injuries and concludes by emphasizing the need to always be on the lookout for “false choices.” For example, the defense will say a client who had preexisting arthritis cannot have a herniated disc from the crash, when in reality you can have both.

Michael continues on this note by sharing a story of a radiologist who attempted to re-define the word “trauma” for the sake of the defense argument. After finding the book the doctor was referencing (MRI of the Brain and Spine by Scott Atlas) Michael uncovered a paragraph which states, “there is no legal or factual basis to date when a herniation happened from looking at an MRI.” After bringing this up in the deposition, he effectively ended the radiologist’s testimony career.

The episode concludes with Dorothy’s final words of advice for deposing defense doctors. She recommends numerous helpful strategies, including having the plaintiff present when the doctor calls them a liar, having your own doctor present to induce what Dr. Hunter calls “the halo effect,” and finally (and most importantly) do your research. Does the doctor say they are board certified? Look into the organization (one even certified a cat). Does their CV say anything about Harvard? Definitely look into that, as she’s found 80% of defense doctors with Harvard on their resume are lying about it. Utilizing this advice and the excellent resources mentioned in this episode will ensure that even if the defense doctor is lying through their teeth, you won’t let them get away with it.

This podcast also covers gaining permission to video record defense doctor exams, sociopathy in defense doctors, what “grossly normal” on a report really means, the importance of reading the literature the defense doctor cites, and so much more.

You can reach Dorothy Clay Sims via email at dcs@dorothyclaysims.com and through her website at https://dorothyclaysims.com/.

 

Bio:

Dorothy Sims and her team combine decades of experience in medical, legal, and research fields.

On a daily basis, Dorothy consults with attorneys throughout the U.S., to provide methods of expert testimony cross-examination. If an attorney requests, Dorothy can depose experts herself. For more information about her consulting, visit the Consultations page .

Dorothy’s practice includes numerous other projects and philanthropic work. She is frequently invited to in-house seminars for lawyers and law firms on researching and cross-examining. She has given over 350 speeches internationally on medical/legal issues throughout the world and is often invited as the state keynote speaker. She has spoken in almost every state in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska. She has also been a featured speaker in Paris, France, Jaipur, India, and twice in Kyoto, Japan.

She has authored chapters in books with individuals such as David Ball and Don Keenan as well as Dr. Michael Freeman. Dorothy donates a percentage of her book profits various organizations including the American Association for Justice and the International Federation for Human Rights. Her book, “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors ” was a best seller for 3 years in a row and went into reprint status soon after publication, unheard of in the industry. She has also authored two children’s books for parents who are injured. The books are available for free upon request. She has also authored articles in national publications to include the Champion MagazineTrial Magazine (The American Association for Justice Journal) most recently on the cover of the December, 2015 issue, and Brain Injury Professional.

About Dorothy Sims

Dorothy received both her undergraduate and law degree from the University of Florida; and studied international law at Oxford University. She is licensed in the state of Florida, US District Court – Northern District of Florida, US District Court and the Middle District of Florida. She has also cross examined experts in many states throughout the US.

Dorothy initially represented miners in Kentucky who were denied black lung benefits. Going down into the bowels of a mine in Eastern Kentucky, she felt vibrations as the miners “shot coal” (exploded portions of the face to loosen the coal). Despite wearing a mask, her trip left her coughing and sneezing coal dust for days; leading to a newfound respect for the dreaded pneumoconiosis suffered by miners who had spent decades in the mines.

After representing coalminers, Dorothy began representing workers who were injured and denied medical care. She co-founded the Florida Workers’ Advocates – the state’s first watchdog over the insurance industry devoted to serving injured – and eventually served as president.

For over a decade, Sims volunteered time to lobby on behalf of the injured and was the first woman to be elected Chair of the Florida Bar Worker’s Compensation Section in its 22-year history. She also served as President of the Marion County Bar Association.

While practicing law, she began to notice an alarming pattern. Forensic experts hired by the other side were reaching conclusions by (1) misrepresenting the science (2) ignoring the science (3) misrepresenting the facts and/or their examination and/or (4) testifying beyond their own training and education.

About Dr. Oregon Hunter

Dorothy’s most recent addition to her team is Dr. Oregon K. Hunter, MD – a medical doctor licensed in Florida – who currently works on cases with Dorothy and other lawyers to determine if misrepresentations are made about the science. If you provide notice to defense counsel, he can attend a deposition as a non-testifying consultant. He can remote in for mediations to explain medical issues to the defense in support of the plaintiff’s case. He watches videotapes of defense exams and provides an analysis for lead counsel explaining what the other side’s expert misrepresented. For an example of an evaluation of a case conducted by Dr. Hunter in which the expert’s exam was videotaped contact us here.

Dr. Hunter is board certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and practiced medicine in Hawaii, California and Florida. He joined Dorothy’s team in 2015 and is an invaluable asset in reviewing cases.

Dr. Hunter is also available to attend mediations by video and explain weaknesses in defense’s position. Attorneys Evan Lubell (elubell@floridalegalrights.com) and Dan Ramsfeld (dan@ramsdelllaw.com) can be contacted as references for Dr. Hunter’s recent participation in their case.

 

63 – Sonia Rodriguez – “You Got Me”: Discrediting Defense Paid Opinion Witnesses

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with his law partner Sonia Rodriguez for an overview of deconstructing defense-paid opinion witnesses. They highlight many of their favorite strategies to use when dealing with a witness who won’t answer your questions, their favorite unexpected “gifts” from witnesses, and the importance of why someone becomes a defense-paid opinion witness in the first place. This episode is full of shocking real-life examples you don’t want to miss.

Michael begins the episode by highlighting the defense strategy to hire someone to discredit their client. He asks Sonia, “What do you do to deal with this?” Sonia describes the first action she takes, which is reviewing what organizations they show they are affiliated with on their CV (curriculum vitae). Most professional organizations have ethical guidelines which these witnesses must abide by. She’s found success in displaying these guidelines to the witness during the deposition and using them to prevent the witness from stating biased information.

Michael then describes the common narrative these witnesses all portray which every plaintiff attorney listening is sure to relate to. Any injury from the crash goes away in 6-12 weeks, but any injury from 10 years ago is most certainly the cause of everything today, even if they haven’t been to a doctor for it in 9 years. Sonia has combatted this in medical witnesses by focusing heavily on the client’s description of pain. Most doctors will admit that the patient’s description of pain is a very important part of the diagnosis. She uses this information to put the witness in a position of saying, “the records aren’t adequate,” which does not play well with the jury.

The conversation then shifts to the difficult but highly effective strategy of turning the defense paid opinion witness into your witness. Sonia explains why this is so difficult to do successfully, but has maneuvered these difficulties by focusing her depos on what she knows she can get from them. She shares an example of this where she was able to build up the witness’s credibility, then use it to get some simple, clear concessions.

On the other hand, Michael says his primary goal in every defense paid opinion witness depo is to make them his witness. Instead of fighting with them in an area where he does not have credibility, he spends his time researching the witness, reading prior depositions, and trying to find what they will give you based off those prior experiences.

Michael elaborates further on the importance of reading past testimonies by sharing a shocking example with a biomechanical engineer who claimed his client could not possibly have a herniated disc from the crash. Before trial, Michael read several of his previous depositions and went through all of the literature the witness cited in the case. He then shares an example of how he used those prior depos to discredit the witness, how his voir dire helped him do this while also relating to the jury, and why reading the literature can help your case.

Sonia wholeheartedly agrees and gives her real world experience using the literature to your advantage. She shares an example where a neurosurgeon used a study about the prevalence of herniated discs to claim her client’s pain wasn’t caused by the crash. After reading the article, Sonia found that it only referred to a specific type of herniated disc, which was not the type her client had. After revealing this, all the witness could say was, “You got me.”

Another all too familiar roadblock is the witness who just won’t answer your questions. While Sonia and Michael both agree this will always be a barrier, they both share insightful techniques on how you can overcome this. Sonia does this by always recording the testimony, so she can show the jury the witness was refusing to cooperate or concede to basic things. Michael then offers another strategy he employs with uncooperative witnesses – using basic, fair questions in a true or false format. While you may still need to ask the same question 10 times to get a response, you can always cut out the first 9 asks. The key to this is to never appear mad or frustrated because it doesn’t present well to the jury. Sonia agrees with this strategy and points out how well-suited it is for a Zoom deposition.

On a lighter note, Michael and Sonia share their favorite unexpected “gifts” they’ve received from paid opinion witnesses. Sonia details her experience of utilizing past testimony to prove an orthopedic surgeon was simply touting lies for money and highlights the importance of sharing information with other members of the plaintiff’s bar. Michael’s favorite “gift” was an ex-sheriff providing testimony on a drunk driving case, who made an incredibly racist statement in his deposition. The judge insisted the case not be made about race, which Michael had no issuing agreeing to. But when Michael asked the sheriff the same question at trial (assuming the witness had been prepped not to make the same mistake), he made the SAME racist statement he made in the deposition.

While these unexpected “gifts” are a huge blessing, they’re hard to come by on most cases. Sonia and Michael conclude the conversation by exploring why people become paid opinion witnesses in the first place. He accurately states, “This isn’t why people want to become doctors or engineers.” Michael explains how many of them either just weren’t good at their jobs or experienced an injury that rendered them unable to perform surgery.

This podcast also covers using before and after witnesses, focusing on the symptoms instead of the diagnosis, whether or not to “go in for the kill” in a deposition, verifying the qualifications of a witness, and so much more.

61 – Malorie Peacock – Elite Litigation: Strategies to Maximize the Value of Every Case

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael is joined by his law partner Malorie Peacock for a discussion of strategies they use to maximize the value of every case. They cover steps to take when you first get a case, storyboarding, gathering evidence, conducting a targeted discovery, the benefits of spending 3+ uninterrupted hours on a case, and so much more.

Michael and Malorie start off the episode with a conversation about what you should do when you first get a case to end up with the maximum value. They both agree you need to conduct a thorough investigation right away. Michael describes how he used to believe if he spent money on a case, he had to get a settlement out of it and get his money back. He would spend $20,000 to investigate and find out it was a tough liability theory but still file the lawsuit, do a ton of work, and spend even more money just to end up with a reduced settlement value and an unhappy client. He has since learned to write off these cases so he can spend his time and money on a case with potential for a better outcome. Malorie then explains how you can research the case yourself if you really don’t want to spend money early on, but Michael and Malorie both agree it’s best to hire an expert as soon as possible.

The discussion shifts to the topic of storyboarding early on in a case. Malorie explains how you plan out exactly how you want things to unfold, but you don’t need all the information right away to plan for a deposition. She describes her highly effective outlining strategy of placing information into “buckets” based on what she needs to talk to each of the witnesses about, constantly asking herself, “What do I really need? What makes this impactful for a jury or not?”

Michael then urges listeners not to appear nitpicky to the jury by bringing up non-causal violations. He shares an example of a different lawyer’s case with a truck driver who did not know any English. While truck drivers are required to speak enough English to understand road signs, the crash had nothing to do with this. That is, until they dug deeper and discovered a massive, shocking flaw in the trucking company’s training procedures.

While many of these strategies can be effective in making the case about the company and maximizing case value, Malorie emphasizes how you can’t ignore what happened in the crash. If it’s the worst company in the world but they had nothing to do with the crash, it doesn’t matter. Michael argues you should always try to make it a systems failure, but if you investigate and there is no credible story, you need to change course. They then discuss other places to look for systems failures which are often overlooked, including the company’s post-crash conduct. Finding these creative case stories and being willing to change course if you find a better story are key to maximizing case value.

Malorie brings up that there are lots of places to gather evidence, many of which are often overlooked. Michael urges listeners to go out to the crash site and walk around, look for cameras, and talk to people whenever possible. He also sees Freedom of Information Act requests as a valuable asset in any case involving an industry with regulations. You can see more than just past crashes, audits, and violations. He explains how sometimes you will see a trucking company who earned the highest score in a safety audit because they promised to fix the issues they had, which they never fixed. Malorie accurately replies, “That sounds like gross negligence.” They both discuss other types of companies who break promises often, and how showcasing this can be a valuable tool in showing the jury this company didn’t just make one mistake, they purposefully lied and tried to cover it up.

Michael and Malorie then discuss how they conduct a targeted and specific discovery. Michael shares how forms can be useful, but adds that you need to look at the issues in your case and adjust those forms accordingly. He describes his strategy of conducting a root cause analysis to dig deep into the reasons a crash may have occurred, a strategy which is incredibly useful for any plaintiff’s attorney. Michael and Malorie then agree on the importance of reviewing depo notes immediately after the depo is concluded and share a useful practice tip to make this process more efficient. After reviewing depo notes, Malorie highlights that many attorneys are hesitant to send a request for production for just one document. She disagrees with this thought process and has found doing this shows opposing counsel you know what you are doing and can even put you in favor with the judge.

Malorie then asks Michael to elaborate on a strategy they use at their firm based off the book “The 4 Disciplines of Execution”, where you block out a 3-hour window of time each week to brainstorm on a case. Michael explains how this time does not include depo prep, discovery, or other “defensive” items, but is meant to be spent “playing offense.” Attorneys are directed to do something to purposely move the case towards resolution and increase the value of that resolution. Michael then emphasizes the importance of these being three uninterrupted hours, because “It takes time for things to gel.” If you spend 30 minutes, 6 times in one week on the case, you have to refresh your memory of all the documents and details, and never dive deep into the critical thinking this activity is meant to promote. This is why Malorie spends the first part of her time reviewing every important document in the case, and inevitably this process leads her to ask questions and explore the answers. She urges listeners to not be intimidated by this process, and notes you don’t need to have a specific goal in mind besides to understand the case better and seek answers to the question, “What is this case about?”

Another strategy they use at their firm is “Workdays.” This is where they gather 3-6 people, including both attorneys and non-attorneys, to spend an entire day working through one case together. Malorie emphasizes the importance of everybody participating and being committed to spending this time on the case at hand. This doesn’t work if people come and go or try to discuss a different case. Michael adds that you don’t need an 8-attorney firm to do this. He’s found success in scheduling once-a-month lunches with peers and implementing a similar strategy.

Malorie has also found utilizing focus groups early-on in the case to be critical in understanding juror perceptions about the immediate facts of a case. Michael agrees this strategy can provide valuable insight into the direction you should take a case story, what questions you need to answer and how your client and experts appear to jurors. They then discuss a time they hosted a focus group where only three people attended, which shockingly ended up being one of the most useful focus groups of the entire case.

To wrap up the episode, Malorie notes “You’re not maximizing the value of a case by wasting time on it.” Michael urges listeners to look at each case individually and carefully, then triage it. Some cases are just not great, whether it be because of tough liability, a great recovery, or a client who presents poorly. Malorie aptly concludes by saying, “Maximizing value doesn’t mean getting $20 million on every case… It’s about allocating your time and resources carefully.”

21 – Sonia Rodriguez – Winning (or Losing) a Case in Deposition

1 Stars2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

With overwhelmingly positive feedback from our listeners, TLN Table Talk podcast is back again! This time featuring fellow partner at Cowen | Rodriguez | Peacock, Sonia Rodriguez, for a discussion mainly focused on how to win (or lose) a case in a deposition.

Michael is quick to note that many cases tend to settle before going to trial, making depositions an integral part of the process. Oftentimes it comes down to knowing the documents better than the defense attorneys while also knowing the right documents to order, which in many cases the defense may not have. It can also come down to a witness’s ability to know and articulate the truth in a deposition, which is frequently a direct reflection on those who have helped to prepare the witness (defense or plaintiff).

So how do Michael and Sonia prepare for depositions? Sonia explains her strategy of always looking back on the jury charge to see what exactly she is trying to gain from a witness, scour the defense record from production to find nuggets of useful information, dig into the footnotes, fine print, and back of pages to find what others might miss. She has also found social media to be useful to learn as much as you can on the person being deposed including who their friends and other contacts are, companies they’ve worked for, and digging in to find info on company manuals or other ways to authenticate them as an authority coming from a witness. Michael, on the other hand, points out the importance of networking and collaborating with other plaintiff’s lawyers as “we’re good at getting things and sharing information” such as prior admissions, reports, or testimony. There’s likely nothing more embarrassing for a witness, especially paid ones than to be cross-examined with contradictory testimony they gave in the past. Sonia, who recently had a deposition with a defense doctor, shares how his past testimony was the exact opposite of what he was testifying to in her case, which obviously played to her favor.

When it comes to the right length of a deposition, Sonia shares her wish to someday be able to take a short depo, but currently has her attention to detail and thoroughness to “blame” for the style of her depositions, one which sometimes drives opposing counsel mad. She tends to feel unsatisfied leaving a depo if she hasn’t covered a lot of ground, knowing the jury will likely not hear most of it. She has also found that many times when she’s taking a deposition, she’s not just doing a trial depo of a witness, but also trying to prepare in advance for a summary judgment response and how they can also be helpful to lay the groundwork for what she might need from another witness. In contrast, Michael prides himself on short but thorough depositions stating how it really depends on the witness and subject matter. He also admits the danger of taking shorter depositions in relation to “having a beginner’s mind” vs. the “curse of knowledge” where you might already know something, the defense already knows it, and the defense witness knows it, but the jury does not, and could lead to talking over the jury with jargon they might not understand. Both agree 100% no matter how you approach a deposition, you need to be actively engaged in listening to the responses and not just running down questions on an outline where you would likely miss the truly important parts of what the witness is saying, or not saying, which could make your case.

The conversation shifts to a lively debate heard in many firms of weighing the idea of “going for the kill” in the deposition vs. saving things for trial when you know the witness will be there in person. With different experiences from both Sonia and Michael prior to them partnering, each brings a unique perspective to the table from their mentors as well as from their personal experiences. Of course, they agree these tactics both have their place, but Michael also brings up the point how oftentimes with expert witnesses, if they don’t know something at a deposition, they tend to come to trial more prepared with a response.

Michael and Sonia jam pack the second half of their discussion with everything from preparing their own clients for deposition, videotaping depositions, deposing the other side’s experts, guiding medical experts to slow down their testimony while not losing the jury with industry terminology, and exceptions to all of the above.

Trial Lawyer Nation plans to do more “Table Talks” in the future, as this podcast has always been about inclusive learning for all in our industry, which includes learning from each other! Please keep submitting your questions, comments, and topic suggestions to podcast@triallawyernation.com; and be sure to like, share, and subscribe to get the latest from the Trial Lawyer Nation podcast!

Find out more about Michael Cowen here.

Find out more about Sonia Rodriguez here.

Scroll to top Secured By miniOrange