Speaker 1: It was a case in which a partner from a very large law firm in Chicago was representing a client and was suing my client, and the first deposition took eight hours. And I was stunned because I couldn't figure out from his questions what his strategy was, and I generally can get a pretty good idea of that from a deposition. The same thing happened on the second deposition. During the middle of the third deposition, it dawned on me that I couldn't figure out anything about his strategy because he didn't have a strategy and he didn't know what he was doing. And then from that point, we were able to build our case because we knew that the plaintiff in the case was lost. My name is Lester Pines. I'm a partner at Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach in Madison. I do civil and criminal trial work and civil appeals. What I talked about were basic explanations about how to use discovery, how to focus discovery with an eye to making an effective response to a summary judgment motion and ultimately being able to prove a case at trial. The best way to prepare for summary judgment and for trial is to ensure that from the beginning of your case that you know what the elements are that you have to prove or the elements are that you have to defeat if you're defending a case and that you focus your discovery specifically on getting proof on those elements and not doing discovery that is broad and so encompassing that you lose sight of what it is that you need to prove or defeat. Affidavits and what needs to be included in them are critical for responding to or making a motion for summary judgment. And affidavits, really, which are also called declarations in federal court, which only need to be made under penalty of perjury and not sworn to, are the way that we get evidence before the court. Crucial to submitting a proper affidavit or declaration is setting forth in that document the foundation for the evidence that follows because summary judgment requires a submission of evidence to the court that would otherwise be admissible at trial. You need to essentially preface the ultimate factual statement with a series of facts that explain why the person was in the position to have observed or why the person was in the position to know what he or she is saying. A lot of times, attorneys draft affidavits that are conclusory. So, for example, in a sexual harassment case, you might see an affidavit where the claimant says, you know, I was sexually harassed by my boss. That's a conclusory statement. The statement needs more detail. It needs to say what was it that that individual did that led the person to conclude that she was being sexually harassed or what was the climate in the office where this occurred or the factory or the store where this occurred, something like that. But too many times, lawyers jump ahead to a conclusion in a statement without laying the foundation for that conclusion. The most important thing to think about when you're conducting a deposition is based on the preparation that you've done beforehand. You need to focus on what are the elements of my case and what is it that I want to get from this witness that will support the elements of my case or support my defense against one of those elements. And the deposition, if you're taking it, has to focus on getting admissions from the witness that support your case. Likewise, if you're defending a deposition, you want to pay very, very close attention to the questions that are being asked so that you can understand where your opponent is going and what your opponent's strategy is. That's something you can learn by closely listening to the questions that are being asked. The question of what isn't hearsay, 90803 is the hearsay rule in Wisconsin. And the first part of that statute defines what is not hearsay, and that includes statements of a party opponent, statements of an agent, statements that have been made that a party opponent manifests a belief in, statements of an agent. Those are very important sources of admissions that can be used against an opposing party, even though a number of the statements in that definition are made by persons other than the party itself or himself or herself. So it's very important to look at the definition of what isn't hearsay in order to structure your discovery because you want to find those statements if you can find them because they're the strongest statements that you can use. A proof chart, it really can be as formal or as informal as you want, but basically it's a list of the elements that you have to prove or the elements of a claim that you have to defeat. And you look at those elements, you look at the information that you're getting in discovery, and you fit that information into a chart or a list under that element so you know where you're going with your claim, what you've got that supports your claim, or what supports your defense against the claim element by element so that you know where you are in your case, you know what you may need to discover further, you know what you've got for summary judgment, and what you've got for trial. Thank you.