Drinking changes nice.

I also notice with please have take care of We were in the

middle of our discussion we're talking about similar claims in the sense they
should all be tried together and possible for various reasons. All right. So let's
assume now that the preliminary motions by the Defendant to get rid of the case
don't succeed. There's no exception. So what should happen next? That to be what's
call. Discovery. All right. So let's think about the discovery from perspective of
what each side would like to get. Think about it from the plaintiff's perspective.
If the plaintiff what information does the plaintiff want from the manufacturer.
And what is the difference between getting the information from the manufacturer as
opposed to getting the information from the bike shop? Plaintiff would probably
want to have the plans for building the bike. So the pieces that it's involves that
go into making the bike complete, how it's build all of those kinds of
preparations. Yeah. Well, that no. But I'm asking an interior question in s. How
does it go about asking how does it go about asking for that information from Sara
company? That's a good question. I or I think probably and I'll help you out.
Great. What's the difference between asking? A large company for the information
and asking the bike shop for information. Just this sheer volume of employees to
ask? Something like who runs the bike shop or owns the bike shop is a much easier
person to find. I'm got to figure out who who you're going to ask. Okay. So how
about asking the company? You can't ask a whole company. I mean, you could. You
could send it to, like, a general info e mail you send it to a lawyer for the
defendant, and you say, tell us this. Should they be able to do that? Sure. I mean,
you should be able to get your information. What's the What's the problem? You
don't know who in the company to ask. All right. Should you be able to send
requests for information to the company as a whole? Well. So how do people go about
asking for information? Assuming you find the company website, yeah. Please. And
I've got all the information right there for you, right? All the accident reports.
Probably not. Probably not. A contact. No web. Not a website. Yes. You lawyer
should reach out to their lawyer and say, I want all information. And they'll say,
thanks. We're not giving it to you. So how a system There are two ways you could
ask for two or three ways. One, you can send them a letter. We call the letter in
the litigation an interrogatory. But it's a series of questions that you asked
them, and you asked them to ask. You can also ask them for documents. Please give
us all the documents that will help us prove our case, or you can actually put
witnesses under oath. All right. So let's talk a little bit about those three
different suppose you send a request for information to the company. The company is
required to answer the questions under oath and send them back to you. What's
difficulty in that process? They want answers. And who writes the answers? Probably
have Pick up nice loud. They probably have assistance from their attorneys. Yeah.
The Attorney certainly reads over every every word. And what's the problem in
framing the question for the plaintiff doing that? Attorney is answering it, they
can answer the question without actually answering what they want. But there's an
anterior problem to that. What's the problem that they have? I need to be precise
with their wording. And what's the difficulty being precise? Thought be what words
you're going to what you're asking for that they thought they can provide
everything. Information. You might not know exactly what you're asking? Yeah, you
don't know what you're asking for. And you certainly don't know how to put it in a
way that they have to answer. So interrogatories are very useful kinds of things to
get at basic information. So what kind of things would basic information be here
you want to know? About the b. A safe form that the company uses Maybe that's hot
basics of a history of complaints regarding the specific bicycle? Well, you might
ask for that. That's probably what you're doing with the design. What's the
question you're going to ask? Tell us what the design is? What's the assembly
process? Maybe anything related to all documents or communications related to the
hospital? What's a defendant going to say in that? No big. We have figs. All
documents related, all our sales, all of our things? Ask the bicycle ask the
materials in? Well, maybe this might be too broad, but my instinct is to ask what
is your quality control process? I was about to say, are there since points for
inspection? Those are things you're going to ask down the road. What are you going
to get an answer to? No. What you want to know is, for example, how many bicycles
they made, where it's manufactured, what basic kind of things that the lawyers will
have to give you the answer. And then you would say, where they're manufactured? Is
the only where was this bicycle manufactured because you know what the make model
was. And when was it manufactured? When was it sold, that kind of basic information
you could get and they will have to give it. Anything else in interrogatories is
much more difficult to get. All right. Yes. Is there a limit to how many questions
you ask? Yes. Yes. There's a limit and su parts and there's a lot of games so going
back and forth. But those are not absolute limits. Those are limits that you have a
right to right to. But basically works out that both sides understand. They don't
want to make a set of motions to the judge. And so they agree on what it is. But
interrogatories are today, not very often used for many things. I think they're
more useful than some people think they are I think they're good ways to get some
basic understanding and get going. And you know, you can ask some things, the names
of the persons who were responsible, you find out things that way. But you could
also find a lot of this out in what refers to rule 16 and rule six conferences in
which you're required to exchange certain amount of information. But we're just
talking about the. The second thing you can do is you can ask for a document. All
right. Make a document request. When the rules were enacted in 1938, in order to
get a document request grant. You had to get an order from the Court granting the
document. And the reason for that was that before the rules were changed in 1938,
discovery didn't exist. They didn't have any discovery. Everything you just went to
trial and you tried to try. The rules changed around and discovery is now No no in
every case. But it was considered intrusive to ask people to get to give documents.
So you had to get a court order. It became ultimately realized that that was a
stupid thing because you bothered the judges all the time. Everybody knew the
judges were going to grant it. And so they changed it to now you could make a
document request. The problem is, of course, as somebody said before about
interrogatory answers, you surely don't know what documents they've got. And there
are methods now in which people can exchange information. You have to ask questions
about documents. And in complicated cases involving electronic discovery, which is
most of the big cases today, that there are conferences in which people sit down
and they exchange information about their information systems. So you know kind of
how they're organized and who they what they did. And it's a whole process of
getting discovery so you can start discovery. But what's the problem with the
document? You don't know what documents requests. So what do you do? I have to wind
that. Ask them all documents related, and that's the problem. So you have to figure
out a way which to do it. You have to know enough to be able to make these document
requests. Otherwise, the defendant will say, or the technically it is the producing
party will say. What what you can't ask. There's broad questions like this. I don't
I broad request I don't have to I don't have to it's too expensive. No. The last
way they do it is by depositions and asking question. What's the big advantage of
the deposition? You ask questions. That's the big advantage. You can't do it and
you can't follow up for the interrogatories. You present more and more
interrogatories, and they're not going to be very good. And so the witness is
there. The witness is accompanied by a lawyer, but the lawyer can't answer the
questions to tell you what say object A. So those are the three basic discovery.
And they're important and they're important because we have a broad discovery in
the Federal ur. And we have it because the people who wrote the rules recognize
that discovery was important. Does discovery impose burdens on producing parties?
Yes. Very significant burdens. The Vensil basis. But the answer is, it doesn't
matter. General, you're going to get a fair amount of discovery in every case, no
matter what it is. And that's because the rule writers have made a policy
determination that it's better to exchange all this information about the case to
get at the proper facts to be determined along with the proper application. So
that's another example. Form. Now, in this case, the defendant is going to the
Playi going to want some information. So let's give you a couple of. Suppose that
the plaintiff says, we would like all of your accident reports relating to this
place? Any any kind of claim that any person has made. Is that a legitimate
request? Why would you want to know? As associated with this record. Some of those
records might have been lost Well, you can't find and you can't find. Okay. It's
good to know because if you can find patterns in the complaints see if h, hey, this
same exact thing that happened to me or my client has happened to a bunch of other
people? This isn't rare
or uncommon. Rich had to do with the wheel. Okay. All right. So that's narrow
narrow down. Is there a concern when asking in discovery if that those materials
might have private information to unrelated third parties like if you asked for the
accident reports, that includes you know pains and addresses of just other
customers that are completely unrelated to the kid. So if you were the plaintiff's
lawyer, would you might you want that information? So you can contact those others?
Yeah. You might find out what? To what their experiences were if they line up with
their own the power. And what else might you want to find out? They want to join
the case. Or what else what you want to find out W Jews mook, baby? They won their
case. Or if they got paid, set? Yes. And you also why else would you want to know
what's happened in other accidents? I want to see if they've never actually made
any adjustments of the accident. If it's a pattern of behavior from a manufacturer,
you might have a better chance at earning damages. And beyond the pattern, if it
happened before, what would you say? Ft. Why didn't you fix it? Why didn't you fix
it the first time it happened? You knew about this. And so you but that
information. Now, What does the Defendant have any legitimate interest apart from
not to be helpful to the Plaintiff? Why would want to refuse to give you this
information? Well, if we're talking about complaints, it might also go into
specifics about involved trade secrets or Defend Defendant may have some legitimate
trade secret information they want to have. Okay. Is that enough to keep us from
being turned over? I pretty hard if it says trade secret in ag. Sorry, everything
is a trade secret. So we'll see about that as we talk talk later on, but they have
some legitimate. All right. Now, second thing that happens is is after the first
time this bicycle was complained about the head of quality control, I probably
ought to talk to this lawyer, the lawyer of the company about that. And let's
assume for the moment, just to make it easier. They've exchanged a written
memorandum. So we don't think Yes. If you're the plaintiff, would you like to see
that memorandum? Should the plaintiff be able to see? Communication. Well, that's a
description of what happened. Why shouldn't they be allowed to see it? Is it
relevant? Yeah. Certainly relevant. Seems to be relevant to why we let the relevant
discovered relevant information. Defendants should feel free to be frank and their
lawyers without worrying about like measuring what they say because they know it
might be Let's do you agree that this information is relevant? Yes. Okay. And so if
you deny the information, you are effectively denying relevant information. I
thought we just talked about a moment ago about surprises and get all the relevant
information out of the table. And this is the rules that J. This clearly interferes
with that do. Yeah. Is this just cause lawyers like to have rules that protect
lawyers? Have access. Why is it unfair? Have access to somebody. Yeah. Yeah. They
can have access to mine, too. Okay. Tommy can talk to Tommy's talking to his
lawyer. You want to have that? Yeah. It's fair. It's fair. Why for those of you
everybody, what do you think? So the document be turned over or not? No. Just you
started poly Is there some other reason to the lawyers protection? The lawyers
can't give their client the best advice unless they can get the unless they can
know their concerns a front and early on. Do we know that? I mean, is that a prove
of fact? It's a supposition. Okay. And who supposition Judges, who are lawyers and
lawyers? And that surely the wrong with the answer. Clients will be less willing to
turn over information. Going on? No. Communications come within the attorney client
privilege. So in this class, but mostly in evidence sacrosa Why should they be? Why
should be if we think that is goal that we're seeking. This is relevant
information. My shut a lot of other discovery. I probably don't want to incentivize
a client to misrepresent things to their attorney to be like, well, this might come
out of discovery. Now I'm lying to my own attorney. No, no. That's the rationale
for the exemption. I'm asking how we can do that a system in which we have
discovery as one of the principal bases of the system to deny that. How can we do
that? Discover. But your client's back basically. So, it's an old rule. But so was
the no discovery and old rule. And we changed it around? Yes, sir. It's not
evidence. But why you it is in evidence? First psi you don't just discover evidence
is admissible evidence, you don't find out we it's admissible to be get trial. They
said we wanted discovery, and we promise only to use it when we beat you up with
the head for a settle. And how can we have on the one hand, a principle that says
discovery? On the other hand, we say, Oh, no, this doesn't. Because we make the
rules, if it works for the court and they want to decide it. But why did we decide
it this way? Why did they decide this? The attorney privilege follows talking to
your attorney to say anything. That's the legal rule. I'm trying to understand how
we ended up there. Yes. It's a trade off. It's a trade off. We recognize that some
of these rules go too far and we shouldn't have them go too far, and there are
other values besides discovery. And this is another example of a trade off. Our
rules. The same is true with limiting the number of interrogatories, or limiting
the number of how long depositions can take, putting an end to discovery, not
because we want to suddenly not interest the truth anymore, because we have other
values in our system. Rule one of the federal rule says inexpensive, speedy, and
just outcomes. That's what we're seeking here. And those words inherently involve
trade offs. Just to who Speedy what cost, inexpensive? No cost. No. None of those
thing is right? Because it's all about a system. Now, next thing we have is the
Defendant says, Well, we'd like to see Tommy's medical records, and we'd like to
talk to his doctors. And in fact, what we really want to do is if you want to have
our doctors talk and examine Tommy, so they be allowed to do any of the or all of
the above and if so. Doesn't sound like a major invasion of their privacy. I don't
think they should have their own doctor doing seven. Tell me because I think
that's, like, that's a lit too much because, well, if you trust that doctors are,
like, expert witnesses with preid trust doctor. You trust any dot. And if they have
already went through the expert witness, then prob should act have had to go
through that process again do examine again. Yes. I think as far as having the
physical documents of having access to his medical records, that's an invasion of
his privacy. Yes. And it goes along with what they said about if you put him on the
stand, and you make him testify under oath, you're still getting that information
in a different way than Justin involve invading their privacy. I agree that there's
some privacy concern here, but the trade off the other side would be having their
experts be able to confirm the veracity of the first experts in this case, the
family is doc? Is it a question of veracity? Not only You're like lying we're not
worried about these? No. But some of the ma. They're looking they're looking to
confirm is it just this doctor who says he's this badly hurt or would another team
of doctors not employed by the family? F years old. Counts on what is that they're
asserting infer privacy. We were just talking before about how limits based on
other principles and the principle of a patient's privacy regarding the medicals is
created could be an acceptable trade off just to if we believe privacy in medical
history is also want to prot. Even though that's a principle lesson log on the
medical field. No. Aside from the privacy issue time has passed. Injuries by the
field it might not even h, what's going to happen? We're jumping ahead. Let's say
it goes to trial. Is Tommy going to have to testify at trial? Well, we'd assume no
but the defendant you assume no? The defendant will likely call him up because it
was him. You're the plaintiff. Do you want you're the lawyer? Don't you want to put
poor little Tommy on the stand? How much jury, but it will be inflicting excess
trauma on Tommy himself. Anybody think that you the plaintiff on the stand in the
case that you have the birth of? Got to put the plaintiff on the stand. What's the
relevance of that? Well, even if he's unreliable, he's a child. Or you are your
lawyer is going to say, I'm not putting my witness on the stand because it's
unreliable to talk I don't know what he's going to get up there and do. He's still
watching clues clues in his free time. Like, I don't know what he's going to say up
on the stand. I would be more of a liability to put up there instead of not putting
him up there and putting up reliable witnesses like doctors and witness. Say how
much he hurt, what happened in the accident? Okay. Yes. I see your POV can testify
on? Yes. He's going to testify got to be treated suppose Tommy were 18 instead said
Oh, yes. Okay. I think we. So maybe we have to deal with the fact that he's a young
person. Of course, he may not be young with h a case against trial. All right. And
so the Defendant says, Wait a. He's going to be the Defendant says he's going to
testify at trial, right? And we have to have and we can't look at the medical
records. And we can't talk to his doctors. We can't have our own examination of
him. Is that fair? Is there some other factor that we want to take into account
when Tommy says, I want all I want your money for my injuries, but you can't look
at my medical records. It could be falsified records. I'm sorry, I canes copy side
could be falsified records. Well, beyond that. It makes you a little
unreliable, and it makes it seem that you might be hiding something. Case in
general. If the plaintiff can't even prove the injury occurred, which in my mind
would require probably medical information. Well, he has medical he's testifying.
Doctors test Didn't we talk a few minutes ago about the Defendant saying, this is
all trade secrets? He said he shouldn't be able to say that? I Admissible.
Bargaining with information so there on the plaintiff's side that the Defendant has
a reason to vote? I he already had a broken the broken language? The accident more
basic than that. I understand you're getting. Doesn't the Defendant just have the
right to verify that the information would be true. How about fairness to the
Defendant? Defendants have rights, too, right? Why should they be stuck with your
medical records and why should they be stuck with your doctors? They should be able
to do something on their own. And that's the whole point of this adversary
proceeding that you can't do it this way. Moreover, is there something a little
disingenuous about the plaintiff coming into court and saying, I want all this
money, but you can't talk to my doctors and you can't look at my medical records.
So the answer is, we can't have a system like that, and we have to find other ways
to protect the privacy interest. But once you start a lawsuit, asking for money
damages for your medical injuries, is unthinkable almost? That that you can
suddenly say, privacy, and I'll tell you exactly what I want you to hear. You can't
talk to my doctors or you can't work my medical act information. I'm sorry. Can you
redact it? L. The answer is yes, but you have to have some good reason. Okay? That
is. But in this case, you know, they would say they would say, Well, it turns out
that Tommy has had seen a psychiatrist. Would they react that? I don't think so.
They're going to want to find out whether there's any possible connections. There
times where the plaintiff submitted to the judge and then the judge verified submit
to the Defendant. Well, we now. So we'll talk about this later on. In caper
submissions to the judge are okay when you used exactly the right word to verify
something. Is this a question of verification? Is that what they're is there really
a dispute that Tommy broke his arm? No. No Well, what's the difficulty is, how
serious it was, and most important or all the prognosis of how long he's going to
suffer the injuries. And what kind for example, how how hurt he was. You want to
look at the medical records in the hospital to see what kind of pain medicine he
got. Maybe some indication of how serious he was. The point is that it's not so
much that doctors lie, it's that they're mistaken, they exaggerate, they don't
think of alternatives. And that's what discovery and ultimately cross examination
trial. Now, let's focus on the question about, can the Defendant require Tommy go
see new doctor? That's a little bit too far. I think we be like examined by
somebody who don't know kind of like thing and I don't like what is the doctor
going to do like is he going to do? Examine it. No no, no. Like, sorry. He's going
to like, what is the fabs and how far he can examined? Like, is he looking just at
the arm or is he going to look at other things that have affected getting into with
the crash? Like where does the limit end or where he can examined? You have to
start. What the limit what would you start? Wouldn't you look at first what Tommy's
injuries claims are. And second, look at the medical records. And everything
they've done in those two areas, you would say you have an opportunity to look at
again? Question to be my question would be in response to what will they get out of
an examination that they couldn't find in a record produced at the time, produced
much closer in touch. It's possible that under pressure the doctor is making the re
put something in or, you know, the orlect some insight that their doctors have or
that they think that the doctors. Is Tommy Tommy suing you, yes. I want doctor Tom.
Injury. When were these medical records made? W when he was injured. Is that the
only question how much he hurt back then the case? How much? He's looking for
claims he's going to have long term effects and the doctor needs to examine him. So
you've got a temporal issue. The medical records are old. And second is, the
question is, how seriously is he hurt now? All right. Is there any objection that
Tommy dot the Defendant says, We have a very good doctor here. We'd like to have
exam. Any problem with that? What is Plaintiff, doctor Brice. So should should the
defense should the plaintiff have any right to object to the doctors the doctor
they chose? There's not necessarily to the doctor that they chose, but is there a
general principle of bodily autonomy and in a non criminal situation you for
someone to submit to exam. Is he being forced to do anything here? Fair point.
What? How did he get into situation? I say? Assuming. Yes. So he's not being forced
we're glad not to examine you as long as you withdraw the complaint? No. I don't.
So does Tommy Toms parents or his lawyers have any legitimate concern arguably
about seeing this dock? Whether or not the doctor is qualified to look at this. And
is it just his qualifications? Experience. And maybe you know something about this
doctor that he's not reliable or that he always does one thing or another or
something else about the doctor. Maybe what area the doctor specializs in to? Yes,
that that would surely have to be the Wes we would assume the Defendant would have
a doctor who was qualified but at least on paper. I guess I have more of a general
question. Is this decision is this like a general judge have some Oh, I see. You're
public. Sorry. I guess my question is more at any point in this process is Judge
have any way yes or decision. S. The parties disagree to go to the judge. So maybe
the Defendant said I want you to go to this doctor. The Plaintiff says that that
doctor is unacceptable for the following reasons. Defendant says, I don't agree,
they'll go to the judge. And so it's clear that the plaintiff can't say, you can't
examine my witness, by my plaintiff in court. But there may be some limits on it,
and that's part of a trade off between the right to have some examination, the
right to have a particular bs. Okay. Several yes. I have one question actually. You
have not actually one filing a lawsuit in conspiracy Well, Okay. To issue because,
like, one person filed a lawsuit particularly the plaintiff, but not really some
one person someone else just to get exam. Whatever the technicalities are, the
point I want to make is that they can't then the parents can't refuse them. The
parents hired the lawyer, the parents can't tell the lawyer that we allow if the
damages are so that not I just have the question as well. Would the defendants,
like the plain the attorneys for the defendants want to do this, like this whole
process of like hiring their own doctors and having the examinations, I mean. So
expect BC. Yes. They will always do. Okay. Because because they can't know what the
problems are unless they have their own doctors. They would never trust. Not
because the other doctors illegal or why people have difference of opinions. And on
issues such as how long is going to suffer from this injury, that is not a question
of fact. Ultimate fact. It's it's a question of judgment in the sentence a
different. All right. No. Several months after several months later, the dealer, ke
Shop renews his request to have the claim investigated he claims he didn't settle
and or at least he did a taxes. And he offers the same statement as he mechanic,
which was previously submitted and was not sufficient basis. Do the result
necessarily be the same so have what tells you that you should have the at the top
of duty the discovery to find out whether this person had actual knowledge. So at
this point, trade Plaintiff could rely on the complaint at the beginning, but can
no longer rely on it has to have opposed the manufacturer shifting to the
manufacturer. The manufacturer has a has his expert, and the expert explains how
the bike is properly made, designed, and semble. And the person is qualified as
mechanical engineer and everything else. And the plaintiff comes in with a of the
right species of not as qualified, relatively says one thing and the other one says
the. Yeah, the government the manufacturer says, when my expert is the best expert
in the world, the judge says, Yeah, it's very very good the other guys not so. By
can. So All right. Where there are genuine issues of fact, Judge cannot irmly
decide the case either way. Cases and case. And so at this point the Plaintiff has
to come forward with Plaintiff's own evidence and rely on the complaint. Defendant
has to have the clash case has to how much the judge thinks one way perhaps all of
the efforts of the case by the Defendant case is now date Is there any chance,
please? Yes. Why wasn't it settled before. Why do you have to get the story as you
get to the courthouse steps, and that's what everybody. Why should that be? Through
all the processes of the erosy and all the failed motions to dismiss. One side
gains more leverage. Ultimately trial is still a very arduous process. Therefore,
it's still in the best interest of side. Is it just leverage? C the cases I'm
sorry. Damage? Well, I always wanted damage get it before. As a question of like
efficiency and how much is going to cost. Is it efficiency, Is that Both efficiency
and the cost. Cost. Well, that's part of efficiency. What else is it there? The
problem was at the beginning of the case. We're talking about why did the settle
offer $2,000,000,000,000 for dollar 75? No. Because you don't know what the cases
were. Indeed, that's one of the principal functions of discovery. And also the
motions.
You understand what the legal risks are of the law for the defendant sometimes?
And you learn what the facts are. You learn what the other side of the cases. So
part of the recent cases often because nobody doesn't focus on that. The Judge now
says is a date, and everybody focuses on. But they also focus on, you know, okay,
we want $20 billion and I want to pay for dollar 75. But what happens is closer
start to weigh the risks of litigate, and they focus on the fact that they might
lose big they have to each side faces those face. That's why the pole is 98%
assembled quite often on the courthouse, but also other times, because you don't
know enough to be able to intelligently settle the case to take a discovery and On
appeal the Supreme Court might also be set a sense of certainty. Well, it is
certain that's eliminating the risks. The risks on both sides. Are in a case like
this ps. I think we do with coming. And in some cases, the Court might appoint a
party we couldn't have a system that you couldn't settle these cases and don't
case. Though the case doesn't settle goes goes to trial. What's the first major
between happens in trial happen. But, we have a jury, but yes. What else? What
else. There's a more fundamental difference. Yes. I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. What I
meant to say was, what's the difference in the court proceeding between what's
happened before and what happens now aside from the factors in jury? Well, that's
ably yes and no, there, but there's admissible evidence on motions for summary
judgment. Witness We have live witnesses in court. And what have we been doing what
have we been using in the past? Losing pieces of paper, complaint, the legal motion
to dismiss, the affidavits of the expert witnesses, the affidavits of the bank
shop. All those are paper. And what's the difference between having a piece of
paper and having a live witness? Can question the person. Call cross examination?
Yes. You're subject to cross examination. In the prior proceedings, everything on
written on a piece of paper was taken as true because you can't cross examine
pieces of paper because that's the system we have that you don't have repeated
witnesses coming in. They do it all on the papers. Then when you get to trial, you
have live witnesses, and you have a decides. Depositions is the prior process and
I'm sorry. What depositions. I enough for prior process, are those live witnesses?
And yes, the depositions of examination or examination are live. Does the judge see
those witnesses? No. They they what they said is on a piece of tape. And the piece
of paper is there and the only thing that you get it is the judge the piece of
paper admit something one way or part or the other. So you don't have any cross
examination in the sense of the decider of fact anger the cross examine. So the
answer is. It's a good point. No. Side. Question about whether when a witness is
being cross examined and it's not you were not I mean you examined you were not the
lawyer doing examination, or even if you are, the question is, how much should you
try to get into and how much should you question the witness in an adversary way to
find out to try to poke holes in the testimony, or do you just want to be sure that
you get them locked into their testimony to find out what they claim to know and
what they don't claim to know. Those are very difficult trial tactics questions
class, but it's a very interesting That's the principal difference. What is we have
a judge in the courtroom. What is the judge do a trial? Well, yes, what does that
mean? That's a while decide when the judges a referee and the parties are Judges
also controls sides or how long Judge also instructs the jury at the beginning of
the case. Supposed to be. And when rulings on evidence come up, the judge makes the
ruling on the evidence. And then as you said, at the end of the case, the parties
present their arguments judges from jury as to the law and the laws with guides.
Yes, sir. We have a bench trial case. I had something that was very technical and
specific judges that are in the technicalities of case rather than plaintiff
medical case where it's something very specific where understand if you're asking
the empirical question how often cases tri? It very much depends upon the kind of
case. The first place is the right to trial by jury is applies only case involving
money damages, you're asking for an injunction. Second is, there are lots of rules
about when you get right to trial by jury. Generally speaking, the plaintiffs want
jury trial because the person cases they for money fits. But cases are tried before
judges for a variety of reasons. But And parties agree, and sometimes the parties
will agree, even though there's a right to be tried before a jury because they
agree that it's a very technical question. And for example, pat litigation. It's a
very technical question, and they realize that ultimately the question is a legal
question and they need to facts on. And sometimes cases tried judges because among
other things, they can be done faster for a judge. Or they can be interrupted for a
couple of weeks while something else is going on, either for discovery or something
else happens. We do that. No. There are lots of reasons why cases are tried before
a judge even when there's facts, and sometimes it isn't so much a facts they need
to get in the bound. It's more efficient than it is trying to do it by someone.
Assuming the answer both fats does the judge believe at the end of the trial before
the jury decides in side at the start of the trial. Well, the judge will some
judges, it depends on the judge. No judges will instruct them generally about the
law. But the general instructions about the law won't help the jury decide if they
can this is a murder case, and the judge says you have to find this is in general
what you have to find in the case. So they know what they're looking for. But
that's a very different kind of instruction for what happens at the end. Because
they did the instructions to tell you what the elements of the crime are but they
have to be the same as of a civil case. This might be a longer question for class.
Why is it that injunction relief Tenth Amendment federal court. Federal Courts and
trial by jury should be for those in common law. We'll talk about that. And the
parties could agree to have a an advisory jury but it wouldn't be a similar. Courts
are a little different. So cases tried to a jury and there's a verdict against the
manufacturer of 1 million do. That'd be the end of the case. Why? There's any net
of lis. I figured was drunk. That appeal based on this line to the judge is
neutral, right? The jury had role picking the jury, the jury is Judgment Yeah.
People make mistakes all the time. Well, are there costs to appeal? More time, more
money. At cases reversed or hel. Most of them are upheld, right? Does that tell you
something? Would it be able system had no appeals? Or is it the inherent error.
Could we have a system that would be a justice system in which we said that some
are all cases, you don't get How about the Defendant? Defendant have a right to
appeal? That's what come out in this case. Yeah. Because like restored to the first
trial, he's still injured. So why does that necessarily give a right to appeal?
Yeah. Yeah. And the judge found the contrary. Why should there be an appeal? Is it
inevitable Is it unthinkable that we have a system in which there are no appeals? I
would say so because I mean gen Unthinkable. Yeah. Absolutely, nope. Absolutely, no
opinion. I mean, you want off want efficiency. You want the law to steer towards.
Obviously, a majority of appeals get the ones that don't, they recognize that the
law was misapplied by the fourth Judge and that's a O something else Is. Yes, I
know. I know, but are our appeals free? Who do they cost? Tas payers. Ta payers. Do
we presume that judges Federal judges are judges are presumed? Make mistakes,
presume Do we have an appeal? Do we have a right top? It turns out that in the
federal courts, in almost all cases, there is a right to appeal. But in many other
situations, there is no right to appeal. Small Claims Court, for example, you don't
have a right to appeal. Because the amounts are not large and be the exist
judgment, and it's not worth cost of appeal, Ba judges are presumably right more
times than and it doesn't make no sense. No question about it not being allowed
claims Courts? If one of the purposes of aping appeals is to correct the common law
so that court precedents are incorrect, legal questions so legal answers don't
apply to other cases. Wouldn't that be true of small or small claim Court decisions
as well? Sure. It's always true of every place. However, Is it worth and remember,
the appeal could go either way for the plaintiff the legislature makes a
determination not be appeals in certain kinds of cas. I truly not unthinkable. It
may be wise or unwise, but it's not Well, they're all present in form or another
question is how you measure them. And there isn't a formula to measure how you end
up with these. Let's change they. Manufacturer moved to dismiss the complaint
earlier. And and it also said in addition to the fact that the claim was that he
did Tommy didn't fide for beer from bike John. It's also a claim that he filed the
case too late filing the statute. Judge rejects those claims at the beginning of
the case. Question is, the lawyers of the Defendant say, those rulings are plainly
wrong. Couldn't they be able to Right then, here's what they say. These are wrong.
You've already forced me to come in and defend them. Now you're going to make me go
through discovery. Next thing I know you're going to have to go to trial, and these
are dispositive motions that I should have won, and the case would be over and the
case would be off the judge's count.
Therefore, I should be able to think it. That's what the Defendant says. Body
agree? How close or how narrow you define dispositive because dispositive means the
case if you agree with the Defendant, the case is gone, done, over. Is that
dispositive enough? Oh, no, no, no. That's obviously the opinion. And the Judge
disagreed, right? All right. But I don't think it should be. But the Defendant
says, the evidence in the case doesn't matter because their legal theory is bogus,
or they filed too late. And we don't need any evidence. That is good. So the first
thing is, what would happen if we had that rule? What's the Defendant going to do
in every one of these cases? What's the Appeal. Why are they going to appeal? Well,
they could get out, K free. And what else? What are they inflicting on the
plaintiff? Loss and delay favors Second is the argument is, well, the judge made a
wrong legal ruling We need to correct that the comp. Anything problematic about
that isn't a big precedent Statute of limitations, maybe not. Depending on what
reason. Judge found this fact certainly happened, not a big present. But on the
other hand, suppose it's a purely legal question about whether they can sue or
whether the intervene shop made the review. Is is one of the purposes of the appeal
is not simply to do justice in an individual case and to correct the error Is the
error of a district judge who makes that ruling a serious error? Project, it's only
one judge's opinion and he goes No. Then it says, Well, Defense says, well, this is
wrong, we should correct it. Is that argument any different? And and that it is.
Different after the trial conjure or not what facts are? Yes. But the legal issue
would still have to be there's appealing on what happened during the trial where
like, one would appeal one would get a successful appeal on what happened during
the trial the same arguments that they their argument is the same that the
plaintiff was actually able to prove all the things they said in the complaint with
the Defendant says, You still don't have a legal claim. Say what or way. Why might
you want to say, No, even if there's a mistake at the beginning, that's okay.
Hypothetical. The jury might for the Defendants. The first thing is, may never be
why the jury may rule in favor of the Defendant. Why else? Most likely reason. It
even go. Why? No. Now, the Defendant says, Oh, Well, yes, I settled this case. But
I only settled the case because I because I lost this motion, was wrong, and I had
to pay more and there was it was a big reason. Defendant right about that?
Defendant is right that they paid more money because they lost their legal argument
that they were banking. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you should allow to
go to trial. Because it will flood the Courts of Appeals cases that may never get
there for any of the reasons we just the the Defendant could win on summary
judgment if it did win on a motion dismissed. It could win at trial. It could
settle it could settle the case. So in terms of the floodgates of appeals, if you
allow them at the beginning, may overwhelm the Court's views. Not a particular good
reason. Unless you presume that the trial judges are generally wrong, in which case
may be. Doesn't require the appeal at the end, also have the advantage that they
have to get. This is after everything has happened in the trial court. So any
possible mistakes have already and component? Yes, possibly. But remember, they're
making the same argument they made at the beginning of the case side. So so nothing
has happened in the trial affect. Now, if this is the rule, and it generally is
that what are referred to as interlocutory appeals are not permitted in motion.
What's the what happens to the motions that denied at the beginning of the case by
the defendant Mr. S be unaffected whatever that what happened at trial. I said it
was too late, it was too late to judgment. But should should the Defendant be
allowed to make that argument? After the case at this point. It's a necessary
concomitant of you can't appeal now, but you can appeal later. That that's got to
be the balance that make the no appeal now rule reasonable because if you've sent
no appeal now and no appeal later, that would be unreasonable or at least
manufacturer loses the and A discovers that Tommy has recovered fully despite the
fact that his doctor said he would never recover. Second, they locate the missing
bolting pit of their parking. And it turns out to be in perfect condition, and
therefore, they're not responsive. And the third, they find out that the Smith's
expert witness lied under oath both his investigations and his. Then real. Yes.
Cos. Say a question of whether or not I have to understand that A. And how do you
how do you guard at error with respect to future damages? What's the only way you
can guard against that? Wait for the trial until Tommy is dead, correct, right? All
right. That way, you're sure you're right. You're sure you're right. But you may
never get the case to trial. We have a system in which we have decided for better
or worse other. Now, we will allow juries to speculate if you want on future harms
because that's the only way we can run the system. And therefore, you are going to
expect that to happen. And surely it would have happened if Tommy had gotten worse
than everybody thought he was stuck with that. Second thing. Is fall turns out.
One. Well, it's dispositive evidence. I mean, it's everybody agrees that if it'd
been there, they would never jury never found in favor of post rank kind of
injustice. The ever be an end to discovery trials, one of the elements of finality
the bolt was a found the manufacturer to say, bolt was found, everything was
provided for on and therefore we have they're no longer responsibility right. Yeah.
But we have a judgment against him for $1 million and actually paid the money but
in the same instance. No, if we agree with that, that this later discovery
evidence, what's going to be the effect in every other trial? People are going to
look and see How about lying? Question from the other one goes the other way around
the attorneys. Yeah. What do you think? What about that? That's a good question. F
Sauce with the goose is sauce for the gander, right? Got to be the same way, right?
It can't be that it only goes against the bad guys that they're stuck with this.
And the good guys don't get stuck. No. It's the same if turned out the defendants
and Plaintiff lot and they later discovered the hole that was defective. Going back
to the question about lie. Yeah. It's kind of hard to say about that because we
don't know what the jury. Turns out what we really do It's conclusive that he lied.
Oh, yeah, Judge said everybody agrees it was key testimony in the case. Yeah. Y. Is
that going to help the Defendant? No, no, not probably not, sir. He's gonna be
convicted of perjury. All right. We can get him on perjury. Tommy's not Amila wants
to beat up on poor Tommy you This is more a question and moving forward as I so. So
if this new evidence presents itself, we're not retrying the old case. We now have
a new case in front of us No, we don't have a new case. They want to overturn the
judgment. Oh, ok. So what they're asking you to do. And I'm asking whether we've
gotten to the first two. Let's talk about lies. And regardless of how the facts
change, it doesn't lies. I mean, that's not the original mist. He lied under oath
about his qualifications and he shouldn't have been allowed at. But on the appeal,
looked at the records the case the appeal is over. They're stuck with the record on
appeal. They're now making a motion to overturn the judgment on the grounds that
they lied. And everybody agrees that the lies were significant in what they got. D
have a chance to prove that he wasn't qualified trials in essence they had a chance
to prove it but he lied and he held up they didn't do it. Okay. But what is the
relevance of that? Fail, they failed to discover. Therefore, they didn't do the
They weren't negligent. It was a very good liar. Ed it up. The case is over,
they've come on appeal. This is it's over and done. If they lied before they gave
the final judgment, the judgment to over. But this is after it's all done. They've
actually paid the money or. They want to get their money back. They filed motion to
vacate it. Well, that's what they're trying to do. The question is, what should the
Court do in this situation? Let's ask. No, the judge is not condoning lying. He's
just saying I'm not going to do anything about it. Let's just do anything about it.
Wait the lier is going to be tried for perjury. I'd say shouldn't be because, you
know, let's say this expert witness, was it hundred cases of going to expect the t
to be ty everyone of 200 cases of of music. No, no, no. Were word about this case.
Per finality here. Will I agree, it seems unfair for the interest per finality
seems to be Judge now has to the judge has to have this policy. Or time out this
walls you once the on otherwise. Always. Yeah. Otherwise, you seem to have issues
trying to re litigate 50 plus year old cases? Well, what is the expert witness was
a cousin of Tomas never know. I mean, I feel like it should be overturned in that
case if there was a conflict. Any lied about being a cousin? Yeah. Okay. Family
member. Anything problematic about what happened to the trial. Somebody accused of
lying during the trial, And the credibility of witnesses questions. And yes, maybe
this is. But maybe we have to decide whether every time somebody alleges there's
going to be lie. But by the way, what would have to happen here? They alleged it.
There would have to be a proceeding to determine whether he lied and maybe whether
the plaintiff's lawyers knew about the lies and what they did about it. And we
would have a little side job. And it would take time
and money. And so we have to decide whether a system is willing. To have a trade
off between finality, end is the end or whether we should open it up in some cases.
And the general rule is pretty strong that you don't open it up because these kind
of allegations are made all the time and would be made all the time if we opened it
up. That doesn't mean that the system would be wrong if we did, it's just the
judgment that we made what be the scenario where they boil Now, there's a document
known as fraud on the court. What that means is more likely to happen.ction
against. So so that the harm could be mitigated going forward even though you
correct. Generally speaking to some extent criminal cases do all criminal cases but
after I million dollar. No Perjury is a crime brought by the District of Jorge. Is
there is there a civil claim arguably for some kind of false testimony against,
yeah. We would probably have a claim against question is, are they going to care
enough to do anything about it? And are they going to does this guy have any money?
Because if he's a perjury, maybe he's going to jail and he has no money. And so the
answer is yes, that doesn't do them any good unless they can collect They want they
won the million dollars. Now, as series of I want to take a step back again and try
to over of litigation. No. The basic theory of the rules that we will be studying
is that it's relatively easy access to get into the court, not hard les requiring.
And that both sides have access to all the information that the legal theories.
Cases should be decided on the merits of the legal issues and on the facts and not
on technicalities of s. And there are receptions. S. So some of the things covered
by this Court, we did talk about. B first almost half of course we talk I what we
talked about, and then we will help. The first issue with subject matter
jurisdiction being which kind of cases can go into the federal court system.
Second, where these cases brought. And then there are some issues I'm going to talk
about. Today, not in the course and last sections. So these are only the basic
framework and the first, requirements for filing suit are minimal but it's
increasingly difficult to stay in court. Pleadings are referred to as notice
pleading to general notion of what the case is about. Give the Defendant enough
information so we can start top. The rationale is that in any cases, the
complaining party will not know the details of the facts, will not be able to file
items of the rules to say better let people get started even if they don't know
rather than telling it that they can't get started. The notice pleadings applies to
answers to the Defendant doesn't have to take. Defendant is also required to plead
affirmative defenses such as statute of limitations. I have to tell you At the
outset. There is a rule known as Re 11. We talk about it later on. Of course, he
basically says to the lawyer, you have a duty to object that your legal arguments
are sound, and you have a reasonable basis for facts. Don't have to know all the
answers. You have that a reasonable basis. In addition on top of being easy policy
is the amending pleadings is very liberal. Can you can add to the change change by
the circumstances. But basically, you're not stopped. What you think is the fact
that the law be. Having gotten the Defendant gets the next play by making motions
to dismiss, they come in two general categories. Procedural objections unrelated to
the merits. To sued me in the wrong. I can't be sued in this state of a. F subject
matter jurisdiction, this case has Those motions are made defendant without having
to engage second is the more substantive one like the manufacturer made says the
matter all your facts are right, you don't have a claim under the law that you are
aping. Often get out motions dispositive step cases sum Judgment. That motion takes
place typically after discovery has taken place. So the Plaintiff can no longer
rely on the allegations. Plaintiff facts is suit. In one sense, it's like a motion
to dismiss because it's about the law, the other sense is different. Myself for.
And typically motions we sum after there has been a reasonable can they be granted
if there's no genuine issue of material fact. Basically speaking is the judge you
don't decide is a factual. Evidence used to support this documentary evidence,
affidavits, support statements about the parties, information, created, discovery
clicking depositions including answers in robaing documents. Any of the information
available for deposition has to be and it's all in writing. Mainly, motions for
summary judgment used by the dem They are also available to the plaint. And then we
come after that. Resemble resolve on motion practice jury. That's the overall art
of Second, the rules and in some cases require similar claims tried together.
Counter claims? And his claims defended against the plaintiff Automobile accident,
both sides are claiming at. Some of these counterclaims are mandatory being that
you have to raise them or the right to litigate. Other ones are permissive, the
Defendant may raise them. One is known as cross claims. Plaintiff. One Defendant
suing and claims of the other Defendant owes that pi. And then there are provisions
allowed for the defendant. As of manufacturer of factor. Mike shops, Mike shops.
Ida getting all of these cases tried. Rules also allow for what's known as
intervention, stat what's going void the party, even though you were invited. Same
thing. There's a controversy. Everybody should be in there. A few words about class
actions. We do not have time. About the class action. But I could not allow him out
of civil procedure. Words about Here they are. There are two uses of class action.
One collect money damages on behalf of the larger class the same. Hm of physical
arm doesn't matter. Those are the most controversial. There are other class
actions. Class actions injunctive relief, asking the Court to order the defendant
to do something stop doing something why do we have class actions? Let's take a
case like Brown versus C. Supreme Court decides the case says the school
segregation. As a matter of law, that's the end of the case. And if the defendant
cooperative and agreed to abide by the law and not try to and runs around, then
that would truly be the end of the case. But in many cases where you're seeking
plaintiff. Two things. One is, it's not just the name plaintiff. All of the African
American kids in schools who were injured by. And second is, many of the people who
were potentially injured by around weren't even alive or in school at the time of
the case. So the class action device enables the parties. To be able to go back to
court force judgment against. In. Why are you doing hand run run around aware and
that's the principal reason how class actions. We'll see many cases in which are
basically law reform cases of some kind that are not class actions because they go
to the Supreme Court and the defendant often the federal government will not refuse
to abide by the ruling. They won't pay attention. So you don't need a class action.
Sometimes you get it, but sometimes often. Very important to understand the
distinction class actions. Okay. No. Let's talk about the general requirements for
class action. First, there must be numerocity. Nobody I don't wear anybody made 40
people of wars cons. It's not a magic number. I really rarely comes. Second, the
plaintiff's claim must have a claim or defense that is the same as other parties in
the case. The idea being it's a matter of efficiency. You want to try cases
together and if everybody's got the same, then they should be able to be tried.
Third is that the Plaintiff's claim must be typical of those in the class. Meaning
that if the plaintiff has a special reason mail or a special reason why they might
have case could not be treated as a class action. And fourth and this is probably
wa counsel. Plaintiff and this is important. The Plaintiff's attorney must
adequately represent the inet of the entire class. Before a class a proposed class
can proceed as a class action. The judge has to approve fits the definition of
class. And the reason this is done is to protect the people who are members of the
class from an improper class. It often turns out that the defendants are the ones
who are arguing this. And they have some points. But the real reason for this rule
is to be sure that those people who did not participate in the selection of the
lawyer class are being treated fairly under the class. There's a lot of law, a lot
of cases about what that means. But it's really important class representative and
the lawyer adequately. The Court has to so conclude often after considerable
discovery of the deal. The last part about class action is that a class action
cannot be settled without the approved. Why is that? That's because the lawyer of
the plaintiff representing everyone. And the lawyer may settle on terms that are
favorable to the client that pa but maybe less favorable to others. And in
addition, damages class actions, is the damages that are paid The lawyer has to get
paid. So how does the lawyer get paid? The lawyer has a contingency fee as most of
the case. Would be the lawyer says, I got a contingency fee of the third. That's
for my client and for everybody else in the class. Well, nobody else in the class
agreed to the one third. And one third may be fair and reasonable for the client,
but not when you add up all of the money damages. And the money typically comes out
of a pot that's created in a judgment or a settlement. And so as part of the
approval of the settlement, the Court has to approve the reasonables of the
settlement and payment of money payment of money. That makes this very different
from most of the cases. Except, of course, it's like the case involving miners
for who the Court also has to approve. For many of the same reasons. Question
about whether they're adequate Most of the disputes that you read about class
actions whether they're good or bad, how much money is being made involved damages
in class actions and things. The value of them is very much debated by people on
both of both sides. And you will learn more about one. But these are the basis of
Next. Third rule. Full disclosure, not surprise is the basis for trial. Discovery
is available from the other side added intentions before from third party
witnesses. It's not limited. Discovery is not limited to admissible evidence. If
the discovery may lead to able has to be relevant. But relevance is a fairly broad
term. And then of course, the availability of privileges like the There are various
types of discovery to talk a little bit about pores document productions. These are
big areas of changes, electronic discovery. The thing about electronic discovery,
the good news and the bad news about electronic discovery. It's easy to locate, but
there's so of it. It's easy to locate it pres. It's very hard to manage. And that's
the big problem today in mature. How manage. Uses of discovery, obtain additional
discovery, support for support or oppose motions, support the case at trial and
perhaps most important as a basis for set intelligence. Fourth, appeals are not
fat. General discussed. Only final orders are appealable. As in most areas of
procedure, there are exceptions quite limited. Some exceptions allow appeals
interlocutory as a matter of right. So, for example, in Donald Trump in the civil
cases against Donald Trump arising out of January 6. He claimed immunity for his
action in civil damage cases. Okay. And the rule is that in those kind of cases
presidential immunity you have a right to interlocutory appeal, immediate appeal,
the motion is there are others in which you have a right that you don't have a
right to appeal you can ask the Court of Appeals or discretionary typical one of
the is the grant or denial of a motion for class certification, those are subject
to discretionary appeal. One of the most common rights of mandatory appeals is
granting or denial of an injunction you're suing you represent reservation society
that you're suing to prevent somebody from tearing down the building. If the Court
denies you the motion. Preliminary injunction. You can't think it a field the
building down before you tie or the other way around. You claim around. So the
granting or denial of the injunction second principle is the appeals are based on
the trial record. You can start adding evidence. Acts. Whether you can change your
legal arguments as a matter made matter. So differences of opinion and some
discussion in some cases. But your basic legal arguments have to be the same. After
all, you want to give the trial judge an opportunity to object or accept your
argument. Last part except for claims of legal error. The judge and even more so
the jury g considerable deference in Judge excludes evidence much harder than the
judge makes it an erroneous pal. So those are your four general rules. We will be
talking only about the federal rules of civil procedure. State rules are different.
They used to be much different than they are. Now they are quite similar. Although
there are ways in which they are different but they're relatively similar and the
principles are quite similar. So now I want to talk about three lessons. The
problem in places. First rules, as well as statutes have purposes. They're trying
to solve the problem. Explain how to deal with. And these purposes often are not
neutral. One side and they're based upon values that we have reported in system.
First the most obvious be they should be able to get in That's not a. System other
systems. But in order to evaluate any of these rules of s, why what problem were
they solving and what do they hold? Unless you understand that, you can't
understand what the basic is. Let alone the exceptions to it and whether they act.
Number one. And the other thing. On purposes of these statutes, other than just
side be. Second, each rule is system and you have to understand how it fits into
the system. So you see where it fits in. And if you tinker with one part of. They
have consequences for the. So when you and related to this is each of the rules
performs a function, but it's generally a limited function. And so don't ask one
rule to assure justice throughout the entire case. It is only a start. And there
are other rules that will help solve the problems that have. What about the
commerce clause. That's constitutional law Mx. So no rule does all the work ter one
wrist. Third, there are price trade offs. Since the rules are often, there are both
winners and losers. And then there are exceptions, then you have to understand how
all of the fit. Okay. Trade offs are inevitable and you need to come come to ris
with them. Understand why the basic rules. Some of the trade offs are substantive.
That is, they tend to help one side rather than the other rules on pleadings, ten
to help. Some of the rules limiting discovery, ten help. It's important to
understand who they help. But other trade offs are not with regard to substance.
Should the answer to the complaint be filed within 20 days should the answer be
filed when it's time. Talk about that in connection with the statute. On the one
hand, you have certainty and ease of administration 20 days. On the other you have
fair why complete the statute of no unfairness to. So those rules are not. The
basic principle is, if you're late, you're late, and you don't want. But how you
manage that question question the way in which the rule how it's going to be this.
Including very importantly the cost of making the determination. Things I referred
to a sites say cost exam are worth it. The answer is in some cases they are in some
cases they are. So the last thing I want to say is, again, two courses for the for
the prices. Course one civil procedure. That in the end is the rules, and how cases
are handled statutes and how they're together, how they fit all. That's. Second how
be a lawyer and how you learn to read cases and how you learn to read statutes and
rules and how you learn to make arguments and understand the arguments on the side.
So that's the lawyering course. And sometimes we'll spend time talking about what a
dissent in a case or a concurring opinion. They aren't the law, as we know going
forward, but they will often illuminate principles about how the law should or
should not be decided. And so that's the lawyer. Time. So when you're reading these
cases you thinking about? More than just what the answer is to is there subject
matter jurisdiction or the plaintiff sue in this particular? Think about why and
how it's going to. I may have said this to you before, but I'll say if you get the
st case. The only two questions I'm interested in are why because. So if I ask you
a question, you tell me, yes, guess what the next question I'm going to ask. Why?
Because. Because that's how we learn what the rule is going to be in the next case.
That's what you're trying to understand why this rule is the way it is and how it's
to help this case. Because that's what you do as lawyers. You know what the law is
now. The next case is going to be a different case, and you're going to want to
know how to apply. You can't apply. With anybody want to change. I thought he was
like, I remember I it's a male dog, it's a tale the same size. I was going to. Oh,
my. I love it. I love it. Mutations a No, I. Do you write the metro. Yeah. Oh, have
you met. What is your name? Sorry. I can remember now. You're in the same study or
Yeah, This is my girl. We have the public Cool Let's get. Thank you. You really do.
To say. I