𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗧?

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲.

Cue the video depo:

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿:
• What do you mean by ‘complaints’?
• What do you mean by ‘defective’?
• What do you mean by ‘potentially dangerous’?
• What do you mean by ‘serious’?
• What do you mean by ‘harmless’?

𝖶𝗂𝗍𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌: So give me a – a definition of what you mean by ‘safe’ so that I can give you a full and complete answer.
𝖠𝗍𝗍𝗈𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗒: Not harmful to their health.
𝖶𝗂𝗍𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌: What do you mean by ‘not harmful to their health’?

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿:
• What do you mean by ‘a safe level’? I’m not a safety expert.
• Yeah, how do you define ‘potentially dangerous’ and what do you
mean by ‘dangerous’?

…and so it went with 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗘𝗢 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹.

𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴.
It opened with Trial Exhibit KL—the company’s vision and values graphic. As the image faded, “Be Accountable” remained. The witnesses’ evasive answers played over their value statement. Then, their faces appeared—one by one—reinforcing their deflections.

“𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻” 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆
During the depos, they pretended not to understand basic terms—
• “Dangerous”
• “Serious”
• “Harmful”
Not a great strategy in a products liability case.

As trial progressed, this evasion coalesced into a theme. The jury saw right through it. We knew we had to capture those moments in a way that would stick.

To this day, I can’t understand who decided that the entire C-suite and product team should play the “clarification game.”

My job was to distill hours of deposition testimony into the best moments.

Initially, we had built a 46-slide deck—one of our best. It included:
✅ A review of our experts
✅ A breakdown of the defense strategy
✅ A review of government safety standards
✅ The best jury instructions
✅ And, of course, our $22 million ask

It was structured. It covered all of the legal bases. But it was also forgettable.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵
Cue the video depo:

Instead of a slide salad, we would let the defense destroy themselves with their own words.

We had 45 minutes for closing.

Our strategy:

No slides. Just a story, told directly to the jury—like a fireside tale.

The final punctuation mark? A four-minute video—their own words exposing them.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗩𝗲𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁
Deliberations lasted just a few hours.

The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict—awarding the full $22 million we requested.

𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗮𝘆—𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂.