[Already have a ticket? Click here]

David Boies vs. Bill Gates in U.S. vs. Microsoft

Part 1 (Opening 30 minutes, presented in Chicago)

Course Description
& Dramatis Personæ



Error loading this page, please try again.

Purchase a ticket to view this streaming webinar:

Agenda for Part 1 (1.5 CLE hours in California)

  • Introduction: Superstar deposer
  • Introduction: U. S. vs. Microsoft
    • Case background & core case facts explained
    • Musante's relevant biases
  • Deposition admonitions
  • Short video excerpts of depo Q&A
    • Competent deposer vs. formidable witness
  • Long video excerpt of depo Q&A
    • Superstar deposer vs. formidable witness
  • Battle of labels: "threat" vs. "competitor"
  • Superstar's approach to depositions
  • Evaluation of depo Q&A in Pine Haven vs. Gates Plumbing

Agenda for Part #2 (1 CLE hour in California)

  • Best case theory
  • Getting adverse deponent to "Yes"
  • Battleships
  • The Grand Unified Theory of Civil Litigation
  • The rule re saving "stuff" for surprise at trial
    • The rationale
    • Pre-trial considerations
    • At-trial considerations
    • Exceptions
  • Cross-Examination #101
  • Developing a rapport with adverse deponent

Agenda for Part #3 (1 CLE hour in California)

  • Developing a rapport with adverse deponent (cont.)
  • The ask-a-leading-question rule
    • Exceptions
  • Depo cross-examination decision tree
    • Lead to a provable lie
    • Lead to a damaging truth
  • Rhetoricate in the deposition
    • Noun-epithets & refrains

Agenda for Part #4 (1.5 CLE hours in California)

  • Word-hawking
  • Nearly every deposition-taker's most significant failing
  • Evidentiary depositions vs. discovery depositions
  • Firewalling
    • interrogatory-like questions
    • wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor terms
    • enumeration
    • looping

Agenda for Part #5 (1.5 CLE hours in California)

  • Firewalling (cont.)
  • Detect a mediocre deposition in 60 seconds
  • Attacking deponent's "inability" to provide an estimate
  • When saving impeachment evidence for trial makes sense
  • Attacking deponent's persistent question-dodging