Settlement Videos

Video Editing Used in Trial

Kirkland v. Martin, Cause No. 2006-56213 (113th Dist. Ct., Harris County 2009). The jury awarded $150,000 against former State Representative Michael Martin in a legal malpractice case.  This is also an interesting study in body language and facial expression.

Michael Louis Minns does a brilliant job of putting the defendant on the spot.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

“Kirkland v. 3M Co., S.D. Tex. Cause No. 04-639, will be sent to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) with a recommendation that, for the convenience of the parties and to promote the just and efficient conduct of the case, Kirkland be remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.”

[It is the filing in the Georgia Court about which Mr. Minns is asking questions in this deposition.  We produced and operated the system that displayed the transcripts synchronized to the tape recordings his client, Mr. Kirkland made.  God Bless Mr. Kirkland, rest in peace and may your family prosper and have a life full of blessings]

In Re:    SILICA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL Docket No. 1553

ORDER NO. 29: ADDRESSING SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION, EXPERT TESTIMONY AND SANCTIONS
Twenty months of pre-trial proceedings and coordinated discovery in the above-styled multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) have culminated in three issues becoming ripe for decision: (1) whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists in this MDL’s 111 cases (totaling over 10,000 individual Plaintiffs); (2) whether the doctors who diagnosed Plaintiffs with silicosis employed a sufficiently reliable methodology for their testimony to be admissible; and, (3) whether Plaintiffs’ counsel should be sanctioned for submitting unreliable diagnoses and failing to fully comply with discovery orders.
The rulings contained herein are summarized as follows.
The claims of every Plaintiff in each of the 90 cases listed in “Appendix A” (attached hereto) will be REMANDED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In order to allow the parties an opportunity to petition the Mississippi Supreme Court for consideration of how Mississippi’s judicial system can best absorb the return of these cases, the Motion to Stay the effective date of remand will be GRANTED.

The Court will STAY the effective date of the remand of the cases listed in “Appendix A” for a period of 30
days from the date of this Order, after which time remand will issue.

Settlement Video

Settlement videos can be used very effectively by plaintiff attorneys to inform the decision makers for the defense of the risks involved in taking the case to a jury. Corporate risk managers and insurance companies handle many cases simultaneously and settlement videos are a good way to make your case stand out as an especially risky one to pursue. Furthermore, there is sometimes a tendency for defense attorneys to “sugar coat” a case and tell their client things such as “let’s see what we can do,” all the time knowing that the fact situation is very serious. Most risk and case managers only learn about their cases through written reports. A settlement video that includes key deposition excerpts and evidence gives them a fuller picture of the risks they face.

The settlement video below was created by compiling still images and integrating them with deposition clips to tell a compelling story through the testimony of the witnesses.