4.17 This is a drug conspiracy case. The case is now on trial. During the prosecution's case-in-

chief, an informant is called as a witness. During the direct examination, the following happens:

Q. (By prosecutor) Mr. Piper, on what date did you have your first telephone conversation with

the defendants?

A. Well, [witness looks at notes he is holding] the first one was on April 18.

Defendant: Your honor, we object to the witness referring to any notes he has with him.

Judge: Mr. Piper, do you need the notes to testify about these various telephone conversations?

Witness: I can testify generally about the conversations, but if youre going to ask me details like

the exact date and time a specific call happened, or exactly what somebody said during a specific

call, I need to refer to the notes I made at the time of those calls.

Judge: But you have a general recollection of the calls?

Witness: yes.

Judge: And you remember the general contents of the calls?

Witness: Yes.

Defendant: We still object to this procedure.

1. What objections and motions should be made?

2. What are the best arguments to support the objections?

3. What are the best arguments to oppose the objections?

4. What are the proper rulings?

5. How else could these issues have been resolved?

4.19Plaintiff sues her employer for wrongful termination, which she claims occurred after she

complained about sexual harassment from her supervisor.

One of the defendant's in-house lawyers made notes during the meeting at which the

decision to terminate the plaintiff was made. During the discovery stage of the litigation, that

lawyer was deposed. Before his deposition the lawyer reviewed his notes of the meeting to

prepare for the deposition. This fact came out during the deposition.

Following the deposition, plaintiff made a motion that the defendant be compelled to turn

over the notes. At a hearing on the motion, the following happens:

Judge: Plaintiff, it's your motion. Why are you entitled to get the lawyer's notes of the meeting?

1. What objections and motions should be made?

2. What are the best arguments to support the objections?

3. What are the best arguments to oppose the objections?

4. What are the proper rulings?

5. How else could these issues have been resolved?