Paul J. Zwier

David M. Malone

In this compact and easy-to-use handbook, David Malone and Paul Zwier provide practical advice on every aspect of creating, discovering, using, offering and opposing exhibits in litigation. What are the new self-authenticating rules for email, text and social media evidence Does your expert need some excitement in his presentation? Are you unsure what the judge means when she says, “What’s the foundation for this exhibit under the Original Document Rule, counsel?” Are you worried that your opponent’s graphics—or your own—may be misleading? If your questions have to do with exhibits—from intersection diagrams on the blackboard to computerized re-creations in the courtroom—you can find them in Exhibit Rules.

Tips, Rules, and Tactics for Preparing, Offering and Opposing Exhibits

Exhibit Rules

Reuben A. Guttman

Matthew J. McCoyd

Alexander G. Barney

NITA would like to acknowledge that this case file was produced through Emory’s Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution, with a special thanks to Reuben Guttman and the firm of Grant & Eisenhofer for their help in authoring the materials. The four case files of United States ex rel. Rodriguez v. Hughes, et al. explore the suit brought by Juan Rodriguez, a prominent engineer, who acted as a whistleblower against his employer, Hughes Aircraft, for violations of the False Claims Act. Richard Hughes (CEO of Hughes Aircraft) learned that the United States Department of Defense (DOD) was looking for a new helicopter to provide to the Mexican government as part of the United States' Mérida Initiative, which provided Mexico resources to help it fight its war against the drug cartels. Hughes, on behalf of Hughes Aircraft, entered into a sole source contract with the DOD. Hughes was favorably positioned to do so as it was the sole manufacturer of the Screaming Eagle helicopter S-70, the model the DOD was seeking to purchase. Rodriguez's employment background put him in a position to ascertain whether his employer, Hughes Aircraft, was making false claims to the DOD. Initially, Rodriguez had been employed at Sikorsky Aircraft Inc., a predecessor of Hughes, working in the design and manufacture of the first Screaming Eagle helicopters. Later Sikorsky Aircraft was bought by Hughes Aircraft. During his tenure at Hughes, Rodriguez had designed and retrofitted early versions of the Screaming Eagle helicopter. When retrofitted with heavy missiles, one of the first versions, the UH-A, suffered cracks on landing. Accordingly, metals intended to help crash-proof the helicopter were added to the design. Hughes also started to employ Magnaflux testing to ensure that later versions of the Screaming Eagle did not have subsurface cracks. Rodriguez claims that he saw cracks in the cabin of one of the Screaming Eagles Mexico helicopters, and that he also saw workers welding over the cracks. Rodriguez claimed that he considered the welding over of cracks in the cabin of the Screaming Eagle a "cover up" of the failure to conduct testing and thus an act of fraud—passing on defective helicopters to the governments of the United States and Mexico.

Motions, Defendants Materials

United States Ex Rel. Rodriguez V. Hughes, Et. Al.

In Doug Li v. John Ross and Ross Construction Co., Inc., the plaintiff, a Chinese-American, claims he had a significant business relationship with Michelle Greenwood and that the defendant, his brother-in-law, improperly interfered with that relationship by making a series of improper and false statements about the quality of his work. As a result of these statements, the plaintiff claims that Greenwood broke off her relationship with him and instead gave the contract to the defendant's company, Ross Construction Company. The plaintiff also believes that the defendant not only bears a personal grudge, but an ethnic bias as well. There are three witnesses for the plaintiff and five witnesses for the defendant. The case file deals with issues of tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, slander, and punitive damages and contains ample material for motion practice. This third edition also contains new social media exhibits. It is available in four versions: Trial, Faculty, Plaintiff, and Defendant.

Plaintiff's Materials

Douglas Li v. John Ross and Ross Construction Co., Inc.

Case File

In Doug Li v. John Ross and Ross Construction Co., Inc., the plaintiff, a Chinese-American, claims he had a significant business relationship with Michelle Greenwood and that the defendant, his brother-in-law, improperly interfered with that relationship by making a series of improper and false statements about the quality of his work. As a result of these statements, the plaintiff claims that Greenwood broke off her relationship with him and instead gave the contract to the defendant's company, Ross Construction Company. The plaintiff also believes that the defendant not only bears a personal grudge, but an ethnic bias as well.

Defendants' Materials

Faculty Materials

This book argues that it can be beneficial for the United States to talk with 'evil' - terrorists and other bad actors - if it engages a mediator who shares the United States' principles yet is pragmatic. It shows how the US can make better foreign policy decisions and demonstrate its integrity for promoting democracy and human rights, by employing a mediator who facilitates disputes between international actors by moving them along a continuum of principles, as political parties act for a country's citizens. This is the first book to integrate theories of rule of law development with conflict resolution methods, and it examines ongoing disputes in the Middle East, North Korea, South America and Africa. It draws on the author's experiences with The Carter Center and judicial and legal advocacy training to provide a sophisticated understanding of the current situation in these countries and of how a strategy of principled pragmatism will give better direction to US foreign policy abroad.

Paul J. Zwier

Books

Your next favorite book is out there