In: Operations Management
5–3. Motion for a New Trial. Washoe Medical Center, Inc., admitted Shirley Swisher for the treatment of a fractured pelvis. During her stay, Swisher suffered a fatal fall from her hospital bed. Gerald Parodi, the administrator of her estate, and others filed an action against Washoe seeking damages for the alleged lack of care in treating Swisher. During voir dire, when the plaintiffs’ attorney returned a few minutes late from a break, the trial judge led the prospective jurors in a standing ovation. The judge joked with one of the prospective jurors, whom he had known in college, about his fitness to serve as a judge and personally endorsed another prospective juror’s business. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Washoe. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, but the judge denied the motion. The plaintiffs then appealed, arguing that the tone set by the judge during voir dire prejudiced their right to a fair trial. Should the appellate court agree? Why or why not? (See Posttrial Motions.)
5–4. Discovery. Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC), contracted with RoadTrac, LLC, to provide software and client software systems for the products of global positioning satellite (GPS) technology being developed by RoadTrac. RoadTrac agreed to provide ATC with hardware with which ATC’s software would interface. Problems soon arose, however. ATC claimed that RoadTrac’s hardware was defective, making it difficult to develop the software. RoadTrac contended that its hardware was fully functional and that ATC had simply failed to provide supporting software. ATC told RoadTrac that it considered their contract terminated. RoadTrac filed a suit in a Georgia state court against ATC alleging breach of contract. During discovery, RoadTrac requested ATC’s customer lists and marketing procedures. ATC objected to providing this information because RoadTrac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry. Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material?
5-3 Answer
I believe that the Court of Appeal should agree because the judge clearly exhibited a past relationship with a juror during the VERDIR and this, of course, can result in the jurors being biased. The concept is completely the opposite when it comes to see dire. It aims to make all prejudices and it should be the most objective evidence and decision-making.
5-4 Answer
I believe that ATC should distribute its confidential Business secrets as part of the request for discovery, as before all this was happening they were in a contract and worked together to prove the point in this case. They are also sued for breach of the contract and for illegal behavior. It's a problem. I assume that when ATC produces its material the restrictions the court will consider implementing, in this case, the customer list should be the list from when they worked together and in the contract. RoadTract will not be given any new details after the contract violation.