Class 26 Problem: 8.3 & 8.5 FRE 407-411

8.3 This is a negligent design and products liability case brought by a motorcyclist against a motorcycle manufacturer. The motorcyclist was involved in a collision with an automobile, which severely injured her leg, requiring its amputation. The plaintiff contends that the motorcycle's defective design caused her injuries to be greater than would be expected from that type of collision. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's injuries were caused solely by the negligence of the automobile driver, not by any design defect of the motorcycle. Before trial, the plaintiff settled with the other co-defendant, the driver of the automobile. The settlement was for $60,000, the policy limit of the driver's insurance. The plaintiff and the driver executed a general release that explicitly released the driver from liability for the accident. At trial, the remaining defendant, the motorcycle manufacturer, intends to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's settlement with and general release of the driver. At a hearing on plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude this evidence, the following happens: Judge: Plaintiff, it's your motion to preclude. Why should this evidence be kept out, given the issues that exist in your remaining case against the defendant manufacturer?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

8.5 The plaintiff, the owner of a tugboat, sues the defendant, a marine construction company, for negligence. The plaintiff hired the defendant to convert the tugboat into a fish-processing boat. In January, while the conversion work was already underway, the plaintiff and defendant signed a written agreement to govern the balance of the work. The agreement contained a "red letter" clause, which exculpated the defendant from all risks of loss or damage during the conversion work. One day after signing the agreement, the plaintiff obtained a builder's risk insurance policy on the boat. In May, one of the defendant's employees, who was doing welding work on the boat, caused a fire that destroyed it. The plaintiff was deposed during the discovery phase. Plaintiff testified that the written contract was never mutually agreed upon, and that, despite signing the contract, he did not believe it to be binding and enforceable. Before trial plaintiff filed a motion in limine to bar evidence of the existence of the builder's risk insurance policy the plaintiff had obtained. At the hearing on the motion, the following happens: Judge: Plaintiff, it's your motion. Why should evidence of your insurance be precluded under the facts of this case?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

Class 27 Problem: 8.14 FRE 501

8.14 The defendant, a doctor, is charged with several counts of income tax evasion. The charges are brought in federal court. The events on which the charges are based began in [-5] when the defendant's wife, Smith, discovered that the defendant was having an affair with his secretary. Smith then filed for Divorce. About three months later, Smith called the IRS, met with an IRS agent, and related how the defendant had used her to underreport income from patient payments for the past three years. According to Smith, the defendant told her to record all patient payments on paper slips, after which she would record some of the payments (the ones he designated) in a stenographer's notebook, and the rest in a ledger book. The defendant would then destroy the paper slips. Only the payments recorded in the ledger book were later reported as income on the defendant's tax returns. The IRS began investigating the defendant and issued a summons to the defendant to produce his corporate records. Shortly afterward, Smith told the IRS agents that the defendant had met with her and his current secretary and told them to erase entries in his appointment book since an IRS agent was going to audit his books a few weeks later. Following a lengthy investigation by the IRS, the defendant was indicted in [-3]. By that time Smith's divorce from the defendant had become final. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress Smith's anticipated testimony based on what she had previously told the IRS agents. At a hearing on the motion, the following happens: Judge: Counsel, you're seeking to suppress Smith's expected testimony about the claimed underreporting scheme and the claimed erasures in the appointment book, right? Defense: That's correct, your honor. Judge: Tell me why that testimony is privileged.

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.

Class 28 Problem: 8.19 FRE 501-502

8.19 This is a theft of trade secrets case. Plaintiff, Mid-Continent, is the maker of a gasoline additive. The defendant, Track Oil, is a competitor. Track Oil hired Mid-Continent former employee, Block, a chemist who had engineered Mid-Continent's gasoline additive. Mid-Continent claims that Track Oil hired Block to obtain the secret formula for Mid-Continent's gasoline additive so that Track Oil could produce a competitive product. The head of Track Oil's chemical engineering department is McCoy, who hired Block. McCoy is not a corporate officer or board member of Track Oil, but as head of the engineering department has total managerial authority over the operation of his department. McCoy reports directly to the company's vice-president of research, who in turn reports directly to the company president. Before this lawsuit was filed, Track Oil's in-house general counsel asked McCoy about the Block hiring. In response, McCoy wrote a memo to the general counsel. The memo, entitled "Memo to Counsel," states: "I made Block's hiring a priority and was told to do whatever was necessary to bring him on board. Block has intimate knowledge of Mid-Continent's gas additive formulation and has been invaluable in helping us put a competitive product on the market." McCoy sent a copy of the memo to Track Oil's vice- president for research. After the lawsuit was filed, Mid-Continent sent Track Oil a Notice to Produce Documents, asking for the production of all documents relating to Block's hiring. Track Oil produced Block's applicant file, but not the McCoy memo. As to the memo, Track Oil acknowledged the existence of the memo but refused to produce it, stating that the memo had been sent to the law firm handling this litigation, and was privileged. Before trial, Mid-Continent makes a motion to compel production of the memo. Track Oil objects. At a hearing on the motion, the following happens: Judge: This is the plaintiff's motion to compel production of the McCoy memo. Why is this memo discoverable?

What Objections and/or Rulings should be made in this case? Cite a Rule and how the rule is applied.