Case Studies
This commercial litigation file presents a dispute between the buyer and seller of a company engaged in the sale of computer hardware and software. The case is available in three levels of difficulty (Nylon Pecan - breach of contract; Nylon Walnut - breach of contract and fraud; and Nylon Oak - multi-defendant, breach of contract, conspiracy, and fraud, with experts), for attorneys with different levels of experience, and each level file is set up for both deposition training and courtroom skills training. Interesting personalities, close questions of expert accounting, and intrigues among the witnesses make these files exciting and real for the participants. A full curriculum, for first through seventh year associates, can be supported by this one file with its variations.
Carter v. Bull-Tank
This case which comes right out of today’s headlines. The facts involve a servicewoman injured in Iraq, who sues the manufacturer of her construction vehicle for its failure to design and include additional protective armor. The manufacturer claims that its contract with the government did not allow it to make such improvements, and therefore it is protected by the government contractor defense. Interesting fact questions are raised and presentation of the evidence requires the attorneys to demonstrate sensitivity to the plaintiff’s and defendant’s emotion-laden positions. For young attorneys who need training in treating witnesses as people—and not merely as containers of facts—this case file is very challenging and effective.
Magneto
This commercial case file presents a dispute among companies who are the potentially responsible parties at a major PCB SuperFund site. In order to minimize the burden of preparation, the case is presented after the EPA has settled with Magneto Corp., the largest PRP. The file concerns Magneto’s effort to obtain contribution from its three neighbors. Participants hone their advocacy skills by exploring these questions: who touched the PCB’s and the other pollutants, what are each party’s theories, and whether the facts show levels of responsibility. The personalities of the witnesses make the examinations real and exciting for the lawyers. Optionally, the file can be used for advanced training, in a version involving expert forensic accounting witnesses.
Rush v. EuroPhone
This motions practice and oral argument case file presents the participants with two interesting motions in limine: a motion for exclusion of an expert in an antitrust case involving competing cell phone products, for failure to consider all available data, and a motion to compel discovery of details of a current engagement by the opposing expert, which appears to use the same methodology as used in this case. Portions of depositions and extracts from “learned treatises” are included to provide materials to bolster the participants’ arguments to the trial court. To make this exercise especially efficient, a limited number of cases is provided (including Daubert and Kumho-Tire) so that the emphasis remains on advocacy, rather than research. If a client desires, a writing exercise program can be added to the oral argument program.
McLean HOA, Inc. v. Bryan Construction Co., Inc.
This small case file is intended to provide young attorneys with an opportunity to analyze a simple dispute between a neighborhood and a construction company that is running trucks through the neighborhood to a nearby building site. Whether a TRO should issue is the question presented to the local court, and the students work in small groups to decide what to present and how to present it. The materials allow an appeal of the denial of the TRO, so that the differences between argument to a trial court and argument to an appellate court can be discussed.