From the Listserv Edited by Louise A. Lock


Louise A. Lock, of the firm of Barry L. Steelman, P.A., received her law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law. She is a member of the MTLA’s Trial Reporter and Legislative Committees. Ms. Lock practices in the areas of plaintiff’s medical malpractice, product liability and personal injury.


Recently, in an effort to protect the confidentiality of information exchanged through the Listserv, the MTLA has in- stituted a new policy governing access to this email forum and as a reminder to those who wish to continue to receive the daily posts for relevant information, each member must sign an online services agreement with the MTLA. If you are not already part of this free member benefit, just send an email to mtla@mdtriallawyers.com


and request


to be added to “the list.” Below is a sampling of recent discus- sions on the Listserv:


USING FOCUS GROUPS:


From: Kenneth M. Trombly <trombly@erols.com>


Colleagues,


I would like to do a focus group for one of my cases, utilizing a cross-section of citizens from PG County. Has anyone suggestions as to someone who might be able to assist me in this regard? Rather than pay a pricey service, I presume that there is a more economical way to go about doing this...perhaps a marketing or psychology professor from U. of MD who is moonlighting, that sort of thing. Any ideas??


From: Lawrence S. Greenberg <lufeelia@aol.com>


Last year, I wanted to create a focus


group in Baltimore County, but not hire one of the local companies to create one since they usually get the same type of people. I called the following places and got 1 to 2 people from each site: a church/ synagogue, retirement home, PTA asso- ciation, Towson University student center and a local elementary school to get a teacher. The turn out was successful, and the results were even better. I paid each person $50.00 for three hours. I prepared a video deposition of my client, instead of bringing him live to testify. It was well worth it to hear how each person reacted to the facts, etc.. Good luck.


40


From: Robert R. Michael <rrmich@aol.com>


Ken:


We have done these for years with and without professional help. Depending on your case, I doubt you really need to pay anyone. If you want to call, I would be glad to tell you how we do this in-house. We have done many of these for less than $2000 which includes paying and feed- ing 20-25 mock jurors, renting enough conference rooms for individual jury de- liberations, hiring videographers to videotape the individual deliberations etc. We are convinced about the impor- tance of these to the extent that we rarely try a case without first having done a fo- cus group presentation.


From: Marcus Z. Shar <mshar@triallaw.com>


Ken, Another alternative is to attend ATLA’s


Case Workshop program. It really is phe- nomenal. You not only learn all about doing focus groups, but you bring your own case which is brainstormed by a group of lawyers & focused by *multiple* focus groups run by *both* a professional trial consultant and an experienced trial lawyer. I’ve attended the program 3 times so far and have always been blown away by what I have learned. I don’t know for sure when and where the next one is be- ing held, but you might check with ATLA. AND.... Vesper just had me proof-read a focus group chapter that is being included in the new edition of his Trial Notebook (West). It is extremely well done, explain- ing how to best use focus groups. Like Bob, I am a big believer in these things. Good luck


PROTECTIVE ORDERS:


From: Dennis F. O’Brien <Obie26@aol.com>


I have recently been served with a pro-


tective order, with respect to making all documents confidential in a product case. While my initial reaction is to say no and


Trial Reporter


fight, I am wondering what the latest thought on the matter is. I am in Fed Ct. I would rather pick a fight I can win then spend my goodwill on this issue unless the 4th circuit usually rejects. Anyone know?


From: Nicole Schultheis <nschulth@interserv.com>


Please let me know who the defendant is, and take a look at the protective order materials available on TLPJ’s web site -- follow links to briefs from www.tlpj.org. Locally, you may wish to look at DeFord v. Schmid, ___ FRD ____ (198_)(Mag- istrate Blake), which was a hard fought case in which, inter alia, I learned how to spell Phillips P. O’Shaughnessy. Don’t fall for the blanket discovery order trick. See the current L. R. 104.13:


“Proposed Confidentiality Orders” Any proposed confidentiality order shall include (a) a definition of confiden- tiality consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.26(c)(7); (b) a method for challenging particular designations of confidentiality with the burden remaining on the party seeking confidentiality to justify it under Rule 26(c); (c) a provision that whenever materials subject to the confidentiality order (or any pleading, motion or memo- randum referring to them) are proposed to be filed in the court record under seal, the party making such filing must simul- taneously submit a motion and accompanying order pursuant to L.R. 105.11; and (d) a provision permitting the Clerk to return to counsel or destroy any sealed material at the end of the litiga- tion.”


Although there is a sample order which goes with LR 105.11, that is not the one you are concerned with at the moment. You should use the local sample confiden- tiality order, which appears just before that one, and is contained in Appendix D to the local rules. I’ve attached it. It sets forth what specific findings and conditions must be in place before such an order is entered. The local sample order will be approved by the court (Robin West as I recall knows of a case where it wasn’t, but the ruling wasn’t published). Make the


Summer 2000


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52