Publications

Your client is “Speedboard,” a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in New Haven, Connecticut. Your client manufactures skate boards and sales are world-wide. The plaintiff is a 35 year old father who “borrowed” his son’s board for a “joy ride.” During that ride the board unexpectedly gathered speed, the father lost his balance, fell off the board, and broke each arm. The son had attached weights to the bottom of the board so that it would go faster. The father sued Speedboard in Connecticut federal court claiming that the board was defective because there was no warning on the board of an increased risk of danger if weights are attached to the bottom of the board. A team of three Dutch engineers, Gene, Rick and Steve, designed the board and prepared the warnings that were on and came with the board. The engineers left Speedboard 10 years ago, and are now living in Amsterdam working for Rick’s bicycle company. Plaintiff has decided to take the depositions of the former Speedboard engineers in Amsterdam.

You have contacted each of the engineers. Gene and Steve are willing to appear for a deposition voluntarily and have spoken with you. Both have strong, well-reasoned opinions supporting the adequacy of the warnings, including focus groups who found that the safety instruction not to alter the board was sufficient to cover not adding weights to the board. Gene would make a very good witness, but Steve is an unpleasant man, does not present well, gets angry quickly, and is unpredictable. The third engineer, Rick, will not appear voluntarily, and refuses to talk to you or anyone at Speedboard. Speedboard’s in-house counsel asks you the following questions:

– What does plaintiff need to do to compel the attendance of Rick?

[Full text is available in the PDF link below.]