In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Júlio César Bueno, Partner and Head of Litigation at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, one of the most highly regarded law firms in Brazil. Júlio explains some of the unique characteristics of the Brazilian civil justice system, including the ability of lawyers to have ex parte communications with the judge and the severe limits on pretrial discovery. They discuss the burdens imposed by Brazil’s enormous docket (over 83 million pending cases) on the system, including the lengthy delays, the extremely short time allocated for oral argument or witness examination and the resulting importance of winning cases through written submissions. They also discuss how these burdens have led to an increase in arbitration, particularly in infrastructure and merger and acquisition disputes, as well as the increasing digitalization of the entire court system. Finally, Júlio explains that disputes over mergers and acquisitions, corporate shareholder disputes and environmental litigation are the most rapidly growing areas in Brazilian civil disputes.

John is joined by Dr. Ron A. Dolin, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and co-author of the textbook, Legal Informatics. Together they discuss how recent advances in technology will impact the law and the practice of law. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Guests: Robert Zink, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Fraud Section and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and Steve Madison, former federal prosecutor and partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles office. John, Robert, and Steve follow up on their August 2023 podcast about the four pending criminal actions against former President Donald Tr*mp. They discuss how events might play out if , as seems likely, Tr*mp is convicted in one or more of the cases. They discuss the current timeline of each case and which will likely go to trial before the November election. They also discuss the consequences of possible convictions in each case, including the range of potential sentences, the procedures involved in sentencing, and the likelihood that he would remain free on bond. They also discuss the impact any potential convictions would have on his ability to remain on the ballot, possible challenges to enforcing any sentences should he win the election, and the possibility of obtaining pardons, whether by himself or President Biden for the potential federal convictions or by the Governors of New York or Georgia in the state cases. They also discuss a potential Constitutional crisis if he were to refuse to report to prison and potential solutions such as a special sentencing to home detention or delayed prison time until after election.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Dr. Marcus Grosch, managing partner of Quinn Emanuel’s German offices. Together, they discuss German patent law. Marcus is regularly awarded top ratings in leading international and German-ranking publications, and both Chambers Europe and Chambers Global have listed him as a “highly regarded patent litigator.” The conversation begins with John noting how Germany is arguably the world’s second most important patent litigation jurisdiction after the U.S. They highlight how major technology disputes in the U.S. district courts are often seen in parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus notes that Germany is integral to the patent litigation world due to the sheer number of cases it receives, as the German economy is far more resilient and bigger relative to its other European counterparts. He touches on how Germany’s significance in the field of patent litigation can be traced back as far as the 1950s. Marcus explains how Germany’s time to trial is also far quicker than in other major European nations, with the fastest trials taking place in Munich and Mannheim, which only take twelve months. He highlights how at least 50% of the patents, whose validity is challenged, are either entirely revoked or significantly amended. Marcus argues that district courts have to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions, therefore, they have to be more prudent and look more closely into the validity issues, which they are generally ready to do. Then, John asks Marcus for advice for other lawyers involved in patent litigation in the U.S. and parallel proceedings in Germany. Marcus highlights how in the U.S., the work has to be done ahead of the filing, which is very different from Germany – most of the cases in America need a notice pleading in the first step, whereas Germany requires a case to be complete from the outset. He also points out how different cases are in Germany compared to the ones in the U.S. The most significant difference is that Germany, like all continental European jurisdictions, does not have a trial-based system, so the parties’ arguments are not exclusively presented to the trier of fact through evidence, like witness examinations. Rather, more like in an appellate hearing, the lead counsel, guided by questions and introductory remarks from the bench, has to address all relevant issues of law and fact in the main hearing. The taking of evidence is limited to specific instances, in which contested issues of fact are directly relevant for the court’s decision. However, many factual issues are not in dispute at the end of the process, which is the result of specific pleading standards and flexibly shifting the burden of proof. This is also important since all continental European jurisdictions have no general pre-trial discovery system. All issues of law and fact are addressed in the main hearing, with no separate motions to dismiss or claim construction decisions ahead of the main hearing. This requires significant preparation and time in court, which Marcus highlights vary depending on the case, with the average patent case being four hours. He notes how sometimes the preparation can take significantly longer than the actual hearing. In addition, he explains how he deals with a ‘hot bench’ over 90% of the time, as judges are very ambitious, prepared and equipped with all of the information and specific details. Finally, John and Marcus discuss European law and how there is no civil litigation at the European level, so patents need to be litigated in national courts. This will now be fundamentally changed with the Unified P Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Dennis Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Salt Lake City, New York and London Offices, Head of the firm’s Sovereign Litigation practice and Co-Head of the firm’s Global Asset Recovery Practice. They discuss various kinds of litigation, arbitration and collection actions against sovereign states. They discuss collection cases against sovereign states resulting from those states’ default on debt instruments, the challenges faced by creditors who hold out after most creditors agree to a debt restructuring arrangement with the sovereign, recent proposed legislation any other government actions favoring sovereigns, the current sovereign debt crisis, and concerns about opportunistic funds who seek profit by collecting on devalued sovereign debt. They also discuss investor state arbitration generally, for example, after a company has invested in a project in a country and the country fundamentally changes the terms under which the investment was made, such as radically raising taxes as Spain did with respect to renewable energy projects after 2008. They discuss the position taken by the EU that EU courts cannot enforce arbitration awards against EU nations even when the nation entered voluntarily into an arbitration treaty and recent indications that the United States government supports the position of the EU. Finally, they discuss litigation against sovereigns unrelated to sovereign debt, such as litigation against state sponsors of terrorism including the lawsuit Quinn Emanuel recently filed against Iran on behalf of victims of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782, parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you’re a plaintiff. US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence. But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools. For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine. John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US’s broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can’t typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can’t use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world. Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by David A. Nelson, a partner in the Chicago office of Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the firm’s National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice. David is widely recognized as one of the most successful patent trial lawyers in the United States. They discuss how trying patent cases is different than trying other commercial cases. They also discuss how to win patent cases at trial including the importance of developing common sense explanations for technical arguments, developing a consistent narrative from the beginning, and using fact witnesses to bring life to your technical arguments.

John is joined by Dr. Ron A. Dolin, Lecturer at Harvard Law School, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Law’s Center on the Legal Profession and co-author of the textbook, Legal Informatics. Together they discuss how recent advances in technology will impact the law and the practice of law. If you enjoy this episode, please leave a like, review, or comment on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any major podcast platform. Check out all the latest episodes at: www.law-disrupted.fm/ Keep up to date with John Quinn on Twitter: @jbqlaw Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jim Wilkinson, Executive Chairman of TrailRunner International and Former White House Director of Communications. They discuss the art of preparing witnesses to testify before congressional committees which is very different than testifying in court. This includes the importance of researching the members of Congress who will question the witness, knowing the discussions occurring in online forums each member frequents, and the four to six categories of questions they are likely to ask. Using specific examples, they also discuss the importance of knowing and using “megatrends” in public opinion, the advantages of having a few key metaphors or “haymakers,” and the importance of preparing three or four “pivot points” to turn the force of an aggressive question away from the witness. Finally, they discuss the role counsel can play in preparing the witness including researching evidence that makes the witness’s points, helping the witness to make their key arguments cogently, and providing confidence that their testimony will not create any legal jeopardy.

In this episode of Law, disrupted, host John B. Quinn joins Christopher Tayback, managing partner of the Los Angeles Office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. John served as General Counsel of the Academy for over 30 years, and both Chris and John have represented the Academy in various legal matters for decades. In this podcast, they share details of some well-known legal issues the Academy has faced. Together they discuss the uniquely important intellectual property issues the Academy has addressed over the years, including the copyright and trademark protections afforded the ceremony’s famous statuettes as well as the use of the name “Oscars” and “Academy Awards.” They also cover the seminal “Creative House” litigation that established the propriety of the Academy’s intellectual property rights in the statuette itself, as well as efforts to enforce the Academy’s “right of first refusal,” which prohibits award winners and their heirs from selling their statuettes. Finally, John and Chris weigh in on the fundamental issues that the Academy faces as motion pictures are now increasingly viewed and premiered on television as opposed to in theaters. Created & produced by Podcast Partners: www.podcastpartners.com Sign up to receive updates by email when a new episode drops at: www.law-disrupted.fm Music by Alexander Rossi www.alexanderrossi.me Producer www.alexishyde.com Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm Host: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis Hyde Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Major Ben Wahlhaus who serves in the International Law Department of the Israel Defense Forces. They discuss the application of the international law of armed conflict to the current operations in the Gaza Strip, including the sources of that law and the role that the International Law Department of the IDF plays in trying to assure compliance. They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack. They also discuss the distinction between war crimes and crimes against humanity and apply both legal standards to the actions of Hamas and the IDF after October 7. They discuss Major Wahlhaus’ day to day activities as a lawyer adviser to the IDF. Finally, they discuss the action South Africa brought before the World Court alleging that Israel is currently engaged in war crimes as well as genocide, including the Major’s role as part of Israel’s defense team and the evidence presented concerning Israel’s efforts to mitigate civilian harm.