Tag: Courts

How To Help a Jury Understand Complex Litigation

We hear this quite a bit from our clients. An attorney, when introducing us to his pending complex litigation matter, tells us up front, “This is a complicated case.” It’s code for, “I don’t think jurors will understand this case.”

We hear it again in opening statements: “This is a complicated case.” So now, the attorney knows it’s a complicated case; the consultants know it’s a complicated case; the jurors know it’s a complicated case. Great. What now?

Here are a few ideas to help you connect your complex litigation to the jurors and make them more comfortable hearing it.

Change the Question

Instead of asking, “How can I make jurors understand my complex case?”, how about asking, “How can I simplify my case for the jurors (and the judge and the witnesses)?” This basic reframing can change your focus—instead of concentrating on the complexity, you and your team begin to think about simplification. There’s a big difference.

Don’t Tell the Jury It’s a Complicated Case

When you tell a juror the case is complicated, they hear one of two things: “They think I’m too stupid to understand this” or “This is going to be way above my head.” The first can cause them to feel offended and the second tends to stop them from listening. Finding ways to explain the unfamiliar in familiar terms helps them understand the concepts underlying your case. Characterizing the case does no good for anyone.

Tell the Jury a Story

 

 

 

Try thinking about your case as a story: What tale do you want to tell? Or think of it this way: If someone at a dinner party asked about your case, what would your side of the story sound like?

We all think in stories, especially from the jury box. Jurors want to know what happened between these opposing parties that landed them in court, not a list of evidence and intricate facts. Instead, tell a story that answers jurors’ questions about motives for the lawsuit and the significance of your case, which should (again) simplify the details. Talking in stories makes your complex litigation more jury-friendly.

There’s a saying that goes, “What you focus on expands.” Ultimately, the key to helping jurors understand your complicated case lies in focusing not on its complexity, but on its simplicity.

Article By Robert Gerchen of IMS Consulting & Expert Services

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2002-2022 IMS Consulting & Expert Services, All Rights Reserved.

Ed Sheeran in “Shape of You” Court Battle

Singer Ed Sheeran is currently giving evidence in a three week High Court copyright trial over his 2017 chart-topping hit “Shape of You.”

Sheeran has been accused by two musicians, Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghue, that his hit song, “Shape of You” plagiarises “particular lines and phrases” of their 2015 composition, “Oh Why.” The two songs in question share a similar melody.

The dispute began back in May 2018 and saw Sheeran and his co-writers prevented from obtaining an estimated £20 million in royalties from performances or broadcasts of “Shape of You” after Chokri and O’Donaghue accused Sheeran and his co-writers of “appropriating” their music. Chokri claims that he sent the track to Sheeran in a bid to work with the star, but later heard the chorus on “Shape Of You” – which became the biggest selling single of 2017 in the UK.

Sheeran’s lawyers told the High Court at that time, that the musician and his co-writers had no recollection of having heard the song in question before the dispute began and asked the High Court to declare that he and his co-writers had not infringed Chokri and O’Donoghue’s copyright, with Sheeran also stating his reputation had been tarnished by the allegations.

In July 2018, Chokri and O’Donoghue issued a counterclaim for “copyright infringement, damages and an account of profits in relation to the alleged infringement”.

In a November 2020 ruling, the parties involved “anticipated that they would incur costs in the region of £3 million between them on the dispute”.

Andrew Sutcliffe QC, for Chokri and O’Donoghue, said the question at the heart of the case was “how does Ed Sheeran write his music?” and whether he “makes things up as he goes along during songwriting sessions or whether his songwriting process involves the collection and development of ideas over time which reference and interpolate other artists.”

Whilst the trial plays out in the High Court over the course of the next three weeks, it serves as a timely reminder that content created should be original and independent to avoid falling within the remit of copyright infringement. Otherwise, the risk of copyright infringement can be reduced by:

  • Obtaining relevant authorisations and approvals from a Collective Management Organisation, such as; PPL PRS (the UK’s music licensing company) or the Copyright Licensing Agency (for printed material);
  • Obtaining relevant permissions from a copyright owner/the copyright owner’s agent which may require the payment of licencing fees;
  • Entering into an assignment of intellectual property where copyright work has been produced as part of an underlying contractual agreement; and
  • Checking any relevant copyright/licencing terms to ascertain whether there is permission to reproduce certain content.

Article By Keisha Phippen of K&L Gates

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Fitness App Agrees to Pay $56 Million to Settle Class Action Alleging Dark Pattern Practices

On February 14, 2022, Noom Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56 million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.

The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged that Noom “actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment.” More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring customers in with the opportunity to “try” its programs, then imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g., only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time. According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a button on the customer’s account page for easier cancellation.

Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear their focus on enforcement actions against “dark patterns.” We previously summarized the FTC’s enforcement policy statement from October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on “dark patterns” that are used to ascertain consumers’ location data.

Article By: Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
 
Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Court Rejects Netflix’s Challenge to Poaching Injunction

In the latest blow against Netflix’s aggressive recruiting practices, a California appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s injunction against Netflix and in favor of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“Fox”), thus permanently barring the streaming giant from poaching Fox executives by inducing them to breach their fixed-term employment contracts.

Netflix challenged the injunction, which was issued two years ago under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), on two grounds. Netflix argued that there are triable issues of fact as to whether: (1) Fox had suffered damages; and (2) Fox’s employment contracts were void as against public policy. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding that the extent of damages to Fox was not relevant to its UCL claim. The Court also rejected Netflix’s public policy arguments, noting that there is well-settled law that fixed-term contracts are beneficial to both employers and employees and that, in any event, the challenged contractual provisions can be severed, even if they are in any sense unenforceable or unlawful.

The Court of Appeal also rejected Netflix’s challenges to the trial court’s permanent injunction, which barred Netflix from soliciting employees who are subject to fixed-term employment contracts with Fox or inducing such employees to breach their fixed-term employment contracts. Specifically, the Court rejected the argument that the injunction was vague or overbroad because Netflix had failed to explain the basis for the objection at the summary judgment hearing, despite having been given ample opportunity to do so. The Court also rejected Netflix’s argument that the injunction resulted in specific performance of personal services contracts, pointing out that the injunction only applied to Netflix’s tortious conduct—and did not bind any current or former Fox executives.

This decision follows a similar ruling late last year, when a trial court ruled in favor of our client Viacom in its anti-poaching lawsuit against Netflix.

A holding the other way for Netflix could have upended the way California employers solicit and retain employees, especially in the entertainment industry, where fixed-term employment agreements are relatively commonplace. Although the recent Court of Appeal decision is unpublished, it presumably sends a strong message to those who would poach the employees of a competitor who are subject to fixed-term employment agreements.

Article By Anthony J Oncidi, Philippe A. Lebel, and Dixie M. Morrison of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Courts Must Restore Minimal Diversity to Restore Balance of Justice

Should federal court jurisdiction be expanded, and what effect would an expansion have on the judiciary? Alongside three legal experts, I discussed this question at a panel event hosted by the Federalist Society earlier in June. The discussion kicked off the National Association of Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action’s Restore Our Courts initiative and centered around the primary criticism of expanding diversity jurisdiction – the impact on federal court caseload.

In my latest study, “Estimating the Impact of a Minimal Diversity Standard on Federal Court Caseloads,” I found that these concerns are largely unfounded. Empirical analysis of almost 3,600 complaints filed in state court shows that replacing complete diversity with a minimal diversity standard would increase existing federal district court caseloads by an estimated 7.7 percent. This translates to an additional 43 cases per year for each judgeship – an inconsequential amount, with great potential to restore the balance in the United States judicial system.

As the Founding Fathers intended, diversity jurisdiction protects out-of-state residents from potentially biased state courts. It is meant to ensure that commercial cases would be heard in an impartial forum to protect foreign litigants from local bias. The traditional diversity statute has been interpreted by the courts to require “complete diversity,” where there cannot exist a common state citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant. But Article III of the U.S Constitution only requires a “minimal diversity” standard for federal diversity jurisdiction, where at least one plaintiff and one defendant must be diverse in state citizenship.

State courts operating under a complete diversity standard open the door to harmful bias and costly lawsuits. Empirical evidence indicates that, compared to federal judges, many state judges tend to favor in-state plaintiffs over out-of-state defendants. This could be due to the intensifying politicization of state courts and state judicial elections where state court judges rely on voters for reelection and thus conform to the preferences of in-state litigants who are also voters.

Countless examples exist of overt bias in state courts, with state judges favoring local litigants and plaintiffs’ attorneys over out-of-state corporate defendants. State courts in Madison County, Illinois have been accused of favoring plaintiffs’ lawyers over out-of-state corporations in asbestos litigation. In fact, approximately one-third of all asbestos injury suits in the United States are brought in this single rural county.

It is clear that biases against out-of-state and corporate litigants continue to thrive today. Returning to the minimal diversity standard required by the Constitution would extend protection against these biases, enhancing fairness in our civil court justice system and discouraging speculative litigation. Most importantly, to the critics of this effort who cite an increased burden on federal court caseload, I say – an additional 43 cases per year is a small price to pay for equal justice.

ARTICLE BY Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law

Copyright © Emory University School of Law 2015 – All Rights Reserved