May 16, 2023 • 28 mins
Ed Sheeran wins copyright infringement lawsuit involving 'Thinking Out Loud', Montana enacts new legislation regulating third-party litigation funding, US appeals court judge sues to halt competency probe, and McDonald's found liable for hot chicken nugget burn
- (00:00) - Rundown
- (00:58) - Ed Sheeran wins copyright infringement lawsuit
- (07:15) - Montana Litigation Funding Regulation
- (14:42) - US Appeals Court Judge Lawsuit
- (20:00) - McDonald's Chicken Nugget
- (27:53) - Outro
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Luke Behnke (00:06):
Welcome litigation nation. I'm your host, Luke
Behnke, alongside my co host,Jack Sanker. For those of you
new to the show, this is thepodcast where we recap the most
interesting legal news storiesand talk about what you need to
know. Jack, what have you gottoday?
Jack Sanker (00:23):
So Ed Sheeran, he's not liable for copyright
infringement against Marvin Gayeafter taking the stand in his
defense and teaching the jury abit of music theory.
Luke Behnke (00:32):
Montana enacts new legislation regulating third
party litigation funding in thatstate, and the oldest active US
federal judge sues to halt thecompetency probe against her.
Jack Sanker (00:43):
Luke, you remember the McDonald's hot coffee case
from the nineties? Well, we'vegot a new one, and we'll be
covering that today as well.
Luke Behnke (00:49):
All that and more coming your way. Here's what you
need to know.
Jack Sanker (00:57):
Up first, a rare intellectual property law story
on this show, but this is kindof a fun one. Ed Sheeran was
recently sued for copyrightinfringement over a Marvin Gaye
song. Specifically, it wasaccused of copying a musical
chord progression from MarvinGaye's classic, let's get it on,
with his 2014 song, thinking outloud. Now I know artists
(01:19):
regularly sue each other forthis kind of stuff. Basically,
when a song sounds too much likeanother song, the original
artist or whomever has therights to the original artist's
music can sue for copyrightinfringement to grab a piece of
the ribbon the revenue that thenew song may be generating, and
that's generally what happenedhere.
Anyways, I wanted to share thestory because of how Ed Sheeran
defended himself at trial. Attrial, while on the stand,
(01:41):
Sheeran actually took out hisguitar and gave the jury a
demonstration of chordstructures and how they're being
used in different songs.Specifically, he strummed a
common chord progression andsang song lyrics to different
songs over the same chordprogression showing that many
many pop songs borrow from eachother in ways that aren't quite,
quote, stealing. And I justwanna play a clip for you all
(02:03):
here of him being interviewed byHoward Stern after the fact
where he kinda demonstrated howthis testimony went.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
You sat down with the jury, and I think this is great.
And you took out your guitar,and you said to the jury, you
think I ripped off this song?I'm gonna play you something now
and show you how similar thingscan be. What did you play for
that jury? If I was the jury,yeah, what did you say to them?
Speaker 4 (02:25):
So it was, so my one is,
Speaker 5 (02:28):
when your legs don't work like they used to before,
and then there's, have I toldyou lately that I loved you? And
then, people get ready. There'sa train coming.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
And then, what was the
Speaker 5 (02:45):
looks like we made it. Look how far we've come my
baby. And she breaks
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I mean, there was a there was a 101 songs that and
that was, like, scratching thesurface. There was, like, a 101
you know, there's,
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I guess you'll say
Speaker 4 (03:04):
it's it's really and what I was saying is, like, yes.
It's a chord sequence that youhear on successful songs. But if
you say that a song in 1973 ownsthis, then what about all the
songs that came before? We foundsongs, like, from, like, the
1700 that had similar, melodicstuff, and then there was, like,
huge songs in the fifties andhuge songs in the sixties. And
(03:26):
it's just no one's saying thatsongs shouldn't be copyrighted,
but you just can't copyright achord sequence.
You just can't.
Jack Sanker (03:33):
It's a really cool use of demonstrative testimony
to illustrate a point to a jurythat I don't think a jury may
have grasped unless you actuallykinda played the music for them.
Very cool trial work. Good workby Sheeran's attorneys at the
firm Pryor Cashman, and a goodexample that when you can
distill your sort of complexlegal argument into common sense
(03:53):
terms, juries can make reallysmart decisions even on
complicated topics such ascopyright infringement. And,
Luke, I I highlighted thisbecause, 1, it's an interesting
story, and 2, I just think it'sreally good trial work here. I
think that Sheeran's attorneys,understood that explaining, you
know, complex, aspects of bothcopyright law and music theory,
(04:16):
really, in, like, the drytactical terms is probably gonna
put jury to sleep.
I can't imagine being a jury in,like, a copyright case, and I
think that sounds awful to me.But when you actually explain to
them, you know, this is why thismatters, and here's an example
of how this kind of would lookin the real world, it's really
compelling. I think it's a verysimple argument, which is, you
know, how can Marvin Gaye ownthe copyright to this chord
(04:38):
progression when there's a 100other examples? And I'm gonna
show you them all right now. I Ithink it's that's frankly really
compelling testimony, and it's acompelling argument, for
Sheeran's version of the case.
What do you think?
Luke Behnke (04:53):
Yeah. I agree. I think demonstrative evidence,
can be a very powerful andpersuasive thing, to a jury
rather than getting talked at,prefers to sort of see things
with their own eyes. And if youcan demonstrate, you know, what
you're talking about for them, Ithink you've got a a much higher
likelihood of success. Muchlike, you know, watching
(05:15):
surveillance in a in a personalinjury case can be pretty
powerful and persuasive.
One sort of similar instancethat I can, you know, draw upon
from my experience is, we hadthis this forklift case, in in
federal court, and, our clientactually had, the box of this
(05:37):
forklift, you know, kind ofrecreated. And we put that in
front of the jury and kindashowed, you know, where, the
operator's foot was, and thenthe plaintiff kinda tried to use
it and show, you know, where thethe foot might have been. And it
was it was interesting, and,ultimately, we were, we were
successful, defending the theforklift manufacturer, but that
(06:01):
that's just a way that's anexample, in a case. And I think
the jury, you know, in that inthat particular matter, in this
Ed Sheeran matter, you know,really appreciated kinda seeing
that demonstrative evidence.
Jack Sanker (06:11):
Yeah. What did they say? Show, don't tell? And
Exactly. Yeah.
And this is you know, I justthink that the Sheeran, you
know, actually have and by theway, you know, he's like a world
famous pop star. So you as a amember of the jury get, you
know, your private littleconcert, from, you know, a guy
who sells out stadiums. I thinkthat there's some element of,
you know, reminding the jurythat, hey. He's super famous
(06:34):
again, and, you should bestarstruck in this moment. And
and I hope you take that back tothe deliberation room when
you're thinking about whether heinfringed on this copyright or
not.
All in all, just great trialwork. It's a really cool way to
demonstrate their argument in away that makes total sense, by
the way. All it takes is, youknow, that 45 second clip that I
(06:55):
played, and you go, oh, yeah.That's a great point. It's, you
know, really, really simple.
Luke Behnke (07:00):
I think I'm gonna start all of my trials this way.
So my first witness will be,like, Justin Bieber. Yeah. Who
the Bieber who the Bieber isdoing? Get him up there.
Jack Sanker (07:07):
If you could drop a cepito on him, why not?
Luke Behnke (07:12):
I'm gonna win them all. For those listeners who
didn't catch our last episode onlitigation financing, 3rd party
litigation financing is anarrangement where a funder who
is not a party to the lawsuitagrees to help fund it. Funders
are typically private firms orcan be private firms operating
(07:35):
large investment portfolios whoexpect to get a payout if the
suit is successful. Montanabecomes the latest state to
enact new legislation whichregulates this third party
litigation funding. Thelegislation in Montana requires
lawsuit lenders to register inthe state and makes judges,
(07:56):
juries, and defendants aware ofa third party when they're
financing the litigation.
The governor signed the billinto the law last week, and the
president of the AmericanTrucking Association says,
quote, the civil justice systemis not a stock market, but that
is what it's becoming with therise of 3rd party litigation
(08:18):
financing, close quote. Hebelieves that this is a common
sense measure, and it will bringlawsuit lenders, quote, out from
the shadows and make the factfinders aware that a
disinterested third party has afinancial stake in any verdict,
close quote. Now the presidentof the ATA, that's American
(08:39):
Trucking Association, expectsother states to follow Montana's
lead in, quote, ensuring fulltransparency behind this, what
he calls, a perverse and shadypractice, close quote.
Obviously, that's one side ofthis, of this issue. Proponents,
(09:00):
as we discussed in our in ourlast episode, take it take a
different approach.
They contend that, litigationfunding, keeps plaintiffs in the
game longer, levels the playingfield, and it puts, litigants on
on equal footing with,defendants who, are often well
(09:22):
funded. So, Jack, this is arelatively short story. I and I
highlighted it only because, youknow, as we've discussed on the
show, litigation financing is iscertainly on the rise. This is
yet another state. I think thecount is up to, like, maybe or
somewhere around 16, states thatare starting to regulate
litigation, financing in someway, at least making these these
(09:45):
litigation funders kindadisclose who they are.
There's been work at the federallevel, to amend the the rule the
federal rules to disclose theselitigation, financiers. So it
just sort of illustrates wherethis is going. Do you have any
(10:07):
thoughts that you wanna add?
Jack Sanker (10:09):
Yeah. You know what? I I actually, I I do kind
of have a bit of a spicy take onthis. So this this Montana law
is requiring the the automaticdisclosure of any third party
litigation funding. Right?
Luke Behnke (10:23):
That's right.
Jack Sanker (10:24):
And, you know, it's the bill's passed, and, the
folks in Montana whoseinterests, that, you know, this
is intending to serve are,celebrating. What if I told you
that this exact same bill waspassed in Wisconsin, 2 years
ago, and to my knowledge, no onecares? Someone I mean, you
practice mostly in Wisconsin.Does it even come up?
Luke Behnke (10:48):
Well so I'll say this. We've we have started to
include these requests in our inour discovery requests. So, you
know, we ask, we'll askplaintiffs to identify,
litigation, funders. By andlarge, though, Jack, I will say
that it hasn't it to myknowledge, it has not, you know,
(11:12):
delayed resolution of a lawsuit.I don't know if I would go so
far as to say it's a perverseand and shady practice.
Right. But, you know, I I I dothink that it it at least helps
us get a matter to resolution ifwe know who the players are, who
(11:34):
the interested parties are.
Jack Sanker (11:36):
So I think it's definitely relevant, and it's
it's a good, you know, if youwanna know, who the stakeholders
are, what it's gonna take to geta number, you know, to get to
get to a number that's gonnasatisfy everyone. Technically,
you know, under the law, theloan providers, they they
technically have no right tointerfere in that process, but
(11:57):
in practice, it doesn't exactlyalways work that way as we know.
But what I can tell you is infrom from both of us that are
doing this, we actually arelitigating these cases. You get
that information. Great.
You know that there's a, youknow, a loan for x amount of
dollars on the that case. It'snot admissible at trial. It's
not relevant. You know, you whatare you gonna do with that? Are
(12:19):
you gonna you gonna argue that,oh, this this plaintiff owes
money?
Like, that's if anything,that's, you know, arguably
sympathetic, to a plaintiff whohad to borrow money at, like,
this loan shark rate of 30something percent. I'm not
blaming the lenders, by the way,but that's that's what the rate
is. So, you know, I I've seenit. I saw that in Wisconsin when
(12:40):
this bill was passed, the prettymuch the exact same bill, and
and, you know, the kind ofChamber of Commerce adjacent,
like, pro business, interestskind of were celebrating, and
they were saying this is gonna,you know, maybe stop the influx
of of third party finance moneybecause now they have to show
well, I just don't see that ithas had any effect, at all, and
(13:03):
I I don't think it will inMontana. I you know, it's great
to know, I suppose.
It's it's it's interesting toknow, and it can impact maybe
how you make some a fewdecisions while you're actually
working on a given lawsuit, butit is not a smoking gun,
certainly. It doesn't I don'tthink it helps, you know, a
defense at trial very much atall. I don't think it's
(13:23):
admissible or relevant, frankly.So, you know, to the extent that
the folks in Montana think thisis gonna change things, I just
don't think it will.
Luke Behnke (13:33):
Yeah. I'm with you. I it's not a silver bullet. I
think if if progressing towardthe the ultimate goal, which is
to get rid of litigationfinancing altogether I mean,
sort of if that's what theirultimate goal is, yeah, I
suppose this is a step in thatdirection.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
But we
Jack Sanker (13:53):
know that's not hap that's not even close to
happening. It's the opposite ishappening.
Luke Behnke (13:56):
The opposite is happening. And that's that's
that's the point I was gonnamake. You said, look. You know,
if if they thought that thiswould, you know, scare these,
these large funders away fromfunding lawsuits, you know,
well, the opposite has beenhappening. I mean, this business
is from from everything I'veseen, this business is,
(14:20):
exploding, and I don't see I'mI'm with you.
I don't see mandatory disclosureas a a silver bullet for getting
rid of litigation funding. Infact, I think litigation funders
will probably proudly wear thaton their sleeve.
Jack Sanker (14:39):
Yeah. It's, it's free advertising. Exactly.
Luke Behnke (14:47):
Judge Pauline Newman, who we talked about in
the past episode, she's underinvestigation for her
performance on the bench, hassince sued the appeals court's
chief judge and others inWashington Federal Court seeking
to block their investigationinto her fitness to hold office.
Newman, who our listeners mayrecall is 95, alleges in her
(15:11):
complaint that the probeviolates her constitutional
rights, and she denied thatthere were legitimate concerns
about her mental and physicalcapacity. She's asking the
district court to halt ortransfer the investigation.
Judge Newman's lawsuit claimsthat the orders justifying the
probe were, quote, riddled witherrors, close quote, describing
(15:33):
as false, an assertion that shewas hospitalized after having a
heart attack in 2021. Accordingto Reuters, judge Newman says
that she served on more appealspanels than most of her
colleagues and issued at least 8opinions that summer, that's
back in 2021, and that herproductivity has not dropped
over the past 3 years.
(15:54):
The complaint further statesthat the committee investigating
her gave her only a few days tocomply with the requests for
mental evaluations and herprivate medical records, which
she calls a baseless invasion ofher privacy. So, Jack, I don't I
don't suppose that your sort oftake on this has changed much
(16:17):
since our last, discussion, butI thought that it's only fair to
kinda follow-up on this and, andremind everybody that there are
sort of two sides to everystory. Judge Newman here is
clearly not impressed with this,with this investigation.
Jack Sanker (16:37):
Yeah. I I think it's it's good that we're at
least trying to tell the otherside of the story now that we
have a little information. Andit does kinda beg the question,
you know, is if there'ssomething else going on here. I
don't I don't know. I mean, I'mway off the rails speculating
here, but it does not becauseone of these parties is, like,
way wrong, and that's the onlyout you know, one of them is
(17:00):
absolutely full of it.
Be just the way that the factsare being presented, and that to
me is you know, it it doesn'tseem like there's, like, a a
benign misunderstanding. Itseems like one side is
completely off base here, andthat, just smells a little
weird.
Luke Behnke (17:14):
Yeah. I mean, this kind of stuff never becomes
public, and this is this is avery public spat. Curious to see
how this ends up. I mean, that'sthat's sort of that's the really
interesting thing here. Right?
If you've got this investigationinto this judge and she's filing
a, you know, a a complaint, thatsays that, you know, this is a
(17:37):
baseless invasion of herprivacy. Like, how do you walk
any of this stuff back, Jack? Imean, this is like what? Are you
gonna remove a federal judgefrom the bench, you know, and
set a precedent for that? Youknow, I don't know.
I I think, again, me lookinginto my my, crystal ball here.
Judge Newman there's no wayjudge Newman is gonna get
(18:00):
removed from from the federalthey're not gonna remove a
sitting federal judge.
Jack Sanker (18:04):
Absolutely
Luke Behnke (18:05):
agree. So, you know, all you've done really is,
you know, call attention to thisyou made made this this issue
very public and, really upset,someone who served for a very
long time since 1984. She was,she was appointed in 84 by,
president Reagan. Yeah.
Jack Sanker (18:27):
And, I mean, we we we talked about this, our last
episode and, you know, wherethere's really not a great way
to to deal with this scenario,other than, you know, you you
hope behind closed doors. Ifthere really is, you know, a
mental capacity issue, like,there there is a genuine I'm not
suggesting there is here. Idon't know anything about this
judge. But if there actually is,you kinda hope that folks would
(18:48):
just sort of nudge the judge,you know, behind closed doors
and kinda get them tovoluntarily, you know, walk off
into the sunset. To do it thisway is like, you know, something
really must have happened.
And for the judge to, because ifthe, those that are making the
allegations are correct, I mean,this is the biggest example of
(19:10):
not taking the hint that I knowof in the past few years. And
and so, you know, either they'recompletely off base or this or
this judge who is completelyaloof, and, like, I doubt that's
the case because, one, she's afederal judge. 2, I'm sure that
she has attorneys and folks thatare working on her behalf and
she's consulting with and whohave told her that this was a
(19:31):
good idea to file this. So it itI don't know, man. It's really
interesting to see how thishappened.
You don't see anything likethis. I I don't remember ever
seeing anything like thisbefore. It's it's really, you
know, dirty laundry of thefederal judiciary just being
aired in public.
Luke Behnke (19:46):
Yeah. As we outlined last time, there's
there are, precious few examplesof federal judges being removed
from the bench, in the past.I'll keep an eye on it and, and
update everyone because I agreeit is a it's interesting because
it's rare.
Jack Sanker (20:05):
Most of you probably have heard of or
remember the McDonald's hotcoffee case from the nineties.
If not, go ahead and Google it.It was, to me, the first lawsuit
that I actually remember,learning about, And this was I
would have been, like, 6 yearsold when the hot coffee case was
(20:25):
in the news, like, 6 or 8 yearsold around then. I remember it
was the hot coffee case, and itwas the OJ trial, or, like, the
2 things that are, like, in mymind is, like, learning what a
lawsuit was. Back in thenineties, there's a woman who
spilled a a cup of boiling hotwhat turns out to be, like,
boiling hot coffee on her lap.
She suffered actually a lot ofhorrendous injuries because of
it. There's a lawsuit. There'spunitive damages awarded, and a
(20:47):
lot of people didn't like that.It it was kind of a a cultural
touchstone for a while. Like,the late night TV host, like,
poked fun at her for spillingcoffee on herself.
But when you look into itfurther, it turns out, you know,
there may have actually beensome wrongdoing here. Anyways,
it's worth it. It's a it's agreat cultural touchstone of the
the nineties if you wanna putyourself in that headspace.
(21:07):
Finally, we have our own versionnow. Us, millennials and and, I
guess, the younger generations.
We have our own McDonald's hotfood case, and this is a hot
chicken nugget. On May 12th,which is today as we're
recording this, a jury in FortLauderdale found that McDonald's
and the franchise operator forthe specific McDonald's, liable
(21:29):
for an injury that allegedlyoccurred when a McDonald's
chicken nugget fell onto agirl's leg causing second degree
burns. The girl was, I believe,4 years old at the time. Jury
found McDonald's liable forfailing to provide instructions
for handling hot food. Thefranchise operator liable for
negligence and failing to warncustomers about the hot food.
And here's kind of just a quickand dirty summary of the facts
(21:52):
here. The mother of the injureddaughter, her name is miss
Holmes, bought her daughter aHappy Meal. The girl was about 4
years old. She handed her theHappy Meal, and then as the car
drove away, the little girlstarted screaming. Miss Holmes
took photos and videos fromimmediately after the accident
showing the burn and the child'sscreams were actually played in
(22:14):
court.
The child is autistic, and shedid not testify. What's
interesting is both sidesactually agreed that the nugget
the chicken nugget caused theburns. There wasn't a dispute
on, you know, kind of the keyfacts on liability here, or on
causation at least. They foughtover how hot the chicken nugget
actually was. McDonald's said itwas no more than 160 degrees.
(22:35):
The plaintiff said it was over200 degrees. Regardless, they
agree that this chicken nuggetburn, the second degree burn in
her leg, which is a partialthickness burn of the epidermis
and dermis. And as we sit heretoday, the case has been
bifurcated on liability anddamages. This was the liability
trial, so we know that there isliability. The actual second
trial is set for this summer ondamages alone.
(22:58):
And when I came across thiscase, I was just transported
back to being, you know, 7 or 8years old and listening to my
dad complain about how a, awoman can spill hot coffee on
herself and get a $100,000,000and how that was, you know, that
wasn't fair, etcetera. And, thenI went to law school and learned
all about that case. And now nowwe got our own to think about,
Luke.
Luke Behnke (23:18):
That's right. And same. So my dad, you know,
firefighter captain on the firedepartment growing up, you know,
big proponent of personalresponsibility. And so he he's
kind of that guy that's like,look. That's that's what this
country has come to.
This is America these days. Youknow? You can just, you know, go
stub your toe and sue someonefor $200,000,000. It's like,
yeah, that you know? Were yousitting on the jury?
(23:40):
No. Alright. You have no ideawhat you're talking about. You
know? The the facts of thatcoffee case are actually pretty
compelling if you if youactually dig into it.
But, yeah, the PR spin aroundit, made it It
Jack Sanker (23:50):
was, like, spoofed on, like, Saturday night live
at, like, Letterman. Like, theymade fun of this woman for,
like, years after this. I mean,the PR that that McDonald's was
able to pull off is, you know,pretty impressive from their
perspective, especially after,like, the, you know,
$100,000,000 verdict or whateverit was.
Luke Behnke (24:07):
So I'm wondering yeah. I mean, I again, this is
the same sort of situation.Right? I don't I don't really
know the facts of this case.But, man, if if a chicken nugget
is putting, like, 2nd degreeburns on your leg, you know, I
don't call me crazy, but that'stoo hot.
Right, Jack?
Jack Sanker (24:24):
Yeah. It shouldn't have. It's like, regardless of
what happened, you know, how itended up on the girl's leg,
like, you shouldn't be handed aa radioactive chicken nugget.
You know? Like, Manny, itshouldn't it shouldn't be that
hot, like, no matter what.
Right. And if it is, like, letit sit for a minute before you
give it to the to the thecustomer. Like, let it sit. So,
(24:46):
so, yeah, I mean, I actuallyespecially because McDonald's
appears to have rolled over on,you know, on the causation
aspect and and and the fact thatit did cause a burn. In my mind,
I'm like, well, it's it's ahappy meal, which means it's
it's it's got a little toy init.
It's, like, intended for littlekids. You know? That in
particular jumps out to me as,like, a factor. I didn't see it
(25:07):
discussed in anything I read,but I bet it was a trial that
this was, like, a product that'sdesigned and marketed towards
little kids. And then you'regonna put, like, an actual on
fire piece of meat in there andhand it to them.
Like, it's only a matter of timebefore someone gets burned. So,
yeah. I mean, we'll see whathappens. I'm really interested
in the damages portion of thistrial. Hope the little girl's
(25:28):
okay, obviously.
But I'll I'll be interested tosee if there's a discussion on
punitives, the same way thatthere was in the original hot
coffee case. And then I'll beinterested to see if the media,
how they spin it this timearound and see, you know,
whether things have even changedat all since the nineties.
Luke Behnke (25:43):
So that's something interesting that you raised
here, and maybe maybe that'ssomething that you can explain
for the listeners, Jack. Sothere's compensatory damages,
and then there's punitivedamages. So even if the injury
itself isn't horrible, right, Imean or it's it's not permanent,
it's temporary, there'scompensatory damages for that.
But the really big numbers comeout when you're talking about
(26:06):
punitive damages. It's 2different things.
Jack Sanker (26:09):
Yeah. And and there's, you know, there's
there's case law on this whichdescribes when each is
appropriate and when what typesof cases where punitive damages
can even be sought. But ingeneral, in an injury case, in
most states, there's aheightened pleading standard, a
heightened standard of proof youhave to show. Something along
the lines of, like, willful andwant in conduct or reckless
(26:30):
disregard, which is a stephigher than negligence. So you
can't you can't get punitives ifyou prove that it was there was
just a breach of a duty of care.
You have to prove that thatbreach was caused by a neglect
to the level of being willful.And so you'll get punitives in
(26:50):
cases where the tort fees or thethe bad actor, the person who's
at fault, maybe knew that thisbad thing was gonna happen and
and did it anyways. So in thefamous, you know, hot coffee
case, the punitives in that casewere based on the fact that lots
of other people had been burnedby that scalding hot coffee, and
they just continued to hand itout anyways, but they didn't
(27:12):
change their practices. And thenthere was more evidence. I I
believe that the temp thetemperature in that coffee was,
like, at that, temp to dissuadepeople from taking advantage of
the limitless refills, because,like, because the coffee took so
long to cool down because it waspractically boiling that, like,
you'd have to sit there allmorning if you wanted to get a
refill.
(27:33):
And so that was, like, the basisfor the punitives in that case.
In this case, I don't know. Imean, I I have no idea. But,
Yeah. I I suspect that therewill be a discussion on,
punitives, you know, if one'sgoes to trial in, I think it's
set for trial in July.
(27:56):
Thanks, everyone. That's theshow. Reminder, you can always
find us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, YouTube, wherever you
get your your podcast, newepisodes drop every other
Tuesday and we'll talk to younext week.
Welcome litigation nation. I'm your host, Luke
Behnke, alongside my co host,Jack Sanker. For those of you
new to the show, this is thepodcast where we recap the most
interesting legal news storiesand talk about what you need to
know. Jack, what have you gottoday?
Jack Sanker (00:23):
So Ed Sheeran, he's not liable for copyright
infringement against Marvin Gayeafter taking the stand in his
defense and teaching the jury abit of music theory.
Luke Behnke (00:32):
Montana enacts new legislation regulating third
party litigation funding in thatstate, and the oldest active US
federal judge sues to halt thecompetency probe against her.
Jack Sanker (00:43):
Luke, you remember the McDonald's hot coffee case
from the nineties? Well, we'vegot a new one, and we'll be
covering that today as well.
Luke Behnke (00:49):
All that and more coming your way. Here's what you
need to know.
Jack Sanker (00:57):
Up first, a rare intellectual property law story
on this show, but this is kindof a fun one. Ed Sheeran was
recently sued for copyrightinfringement over a Marvin Gaye
song. Specifically, it wasaccused of copying a musical
chord progression from MarvinGaye's classic, let's get it on,
with his 2014 song, thinking outloud. Now I know artists
(01:19):
regularly sue each other forthis kind of stuff. Basically,
when a song sounds too much likeanother song, the original
artist or whomever has therights to the original artist's
music can sue for copyrightinfringement to grab a piece of
the ribbon the revenue that thenew song may be generating, and
that's generally what happenedhere.
Anyways, I wanted to share thestory because of how Ed Sheeran
defended himself at trial. Attrial, while on the stand,
(01:41):
Sheeran actually took out hisguitar and gave the jury a
demonstration of chordstructures and how they're being
used in different songs.Specifically, he strummed a
common chord progression andsang song lyrics to different
songs over the same chordprogression showing that many
many pop songs borrow from eachother in ways that aren't quite,
quote, stealing. And I justwanna play a clip for you all
(02:03):
here of him being interviewed byHoward Stern after the fact
where he kinda demonstrated howthis testimony went.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
You sat down with the jury, and I think this is great.
And you took out your guitar,and you said to the jury, you
think I ripped off this song?I'm gonna play you something now
and show you how similar thingscan be. What did you play for
that jury? If I was the jury,yeah, what did you say to them?
Speaker 4 (02:25):
So it was, so my one is,
Speaker 5 (02:28):
when your legs don't work like they used to before,
and then there's, have I toldyou lately that I loved you? And
then, people get ready. There'sa train coming.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
And then, what was the
Speaker 5 (02:45):
looks like we made it. Look how far we've come my
baby. And she breaks
Speaker 4 (02:53):
I mean, there was a there was a 101 songs that and
that was, like, scratching thesurface. There was, like, a 101
you know, there's,
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I guess you'll say
Speaker 4 (03:04):
it's it's really and what I was saying is, like, yes.
It's a chord sequence that youhear on successful songs. But if
you say that a song in 1973 ownsthis, then what about all the
songs that came before? We foundsongs, like, from, like, the
1700 that had similar, melodicstuff, and then there was, like,
huge songs in the fifties andhuge songs in the sixties. And
(03:26):
it's just no one's saying thatsongs shouldn't be copyrighted,
but you just can't copyright achord sequence.
You just can't.
Jack Sanker (03:33):
It's a really cool use of demonstrative testimony
to illustrate a point to a jurythat I don't think a jury may
have grasped unless you actuallykinda played the music for them.
Very cool trial work. Good workby Sheeran's attorneys at the
firm Pryor Cashman, and a goodexample that when you can
distill your sort of complexlegal argument into common sense
(03:53):
terms, juries can make reallysmart decisions even on
complicated topics such ascopyright infringement. And,
Luke, I I highlighted thisbecause, 1, it's an interesting
story, and 2, I just think it'sreally good trial work here. I
think that Sheeran's attorneys,understood that explaining, you
know, complex, aspects of bothcopyright law and music theory,
(04:16):
really, in, like, the drytactical terms is probably gonna
put jury to sleep.
I can't imagine being a jury in,like, a copyright case, and I
think that sounds awful to me.But when you actually explain to
them, you know, this is why thismatters, and here's an example
of how this kind of would lookin the real world, it's really
compelling. I think it's a verysimple argument, which is, you
know, how can Marvin Gaye ownthe copyright to this chord
(04:38):
progression when there's a 100other examples? And I'm gonna
show you them all right now. I Ithink it's that's frankly really
compelling testimony, and it's acompelling argument, for
Sheeran's version of the case.
What do you think?
Luke Behnke (04:53):
Yeah. I agree. I think demonstrative evidence,
can be a very powerful andpersuasive thing, to a jury
rather than getting talked at,prefers to sort of see things
with their own eyes. And if youcan demonstrate, you know, what
you're talking about for them, Ithink you've got a a much higher
likelihood of success. Muchlike, you know, watching
(05:15):
surveillance in a in a personalinjury case can be pretty
powerful and persuasive.
One sort of similar instancethat I can, you know, draw upon
from my experience is, we hadthis this forklift case, in in
federal court, and, our clientactually had, the box of this
(05:37):
forklift, you know, kind ofrecreated. And we put that in
front of the jury and kindashowed, you know, where, the
operator's foot was, and thenthe plaintiff kinda tried to use
it and show, you know, where thethe foot might have been. And it
was it was interesting, and,ultimately, we were, we were
successful, defending the theforklift manufacturer, but that
(06:01):
that's just a way that's anexample, in a case. And I think
the jury, you know, in that inthat particular matter, in this
Ed Sheeran matter, you know,really appreciated kinda seeing
that demonstrative evidence.
Jack Sanker (06:11):
Yeah. What did they say? Show, don't tell? And
Exactly. Yeah.
And this is you know, I justthink that the Sheeran, you
know, actually have and by theway, you know, he's like a world
famous pop star. So you as a amember of the jury get, you
know, your private littleconcert, from, you know, a guy
who sells out stadiums. I thinkthat there's some element of,
you know, reminding the jurythat, hey. He's super famous
(06:34):
again, and, you should bestarstruck in this moment. And
and I hope you take that back tothe deliberation room when
you're thinking about whether heinfringed on this copyright or
not.
All in all, just great trialwork. It's a really cool way to
demonstrate their argument in away that makes total sense, by
the way. All it takes is, youknow, that 45 second clip that I
(06:55):
played, and you go, oh, yeah.That's a great point. It's, you
know, really, really simple.
Luke Behnke (07:00):
I think I'm gonna start all of my trials this way.
So my first witness will be,like, Justin Bieber. Yeah. Who
the Bieber who the Bieber isdoing? Get him up there.
Jack Sanker (07:07):
If you could drop a cepito on him, why not?
Luke Behnke (07:12):
I'm gonna win them all. For those listeners who
didn't catch our last episode onlitigation financing, 3rd party
litigation financing is anarrangement where a funder who
is not a party to the lawsuitagrees to help fund it. Funders
are typically private firms orcan be private firms operating
(07:35):
large investment portfolios whoexpect to get a payout if the
suit is successful. Montanabecomes the latest state to
enact new legislation whichregulates this third party
litigation funding. Thelegislation in Montana requires
lawsuit lenders to register inthe state and makes judges,
(07:56):
juries, and defendants aware ofa third party when they're
financing the litigation.
The governor signed the billinto the law last week, and the
president of the AmericanTrucking Association says,
quote, the civil justice systemis not a stock market, but that
is what it's becoming with therise of 3rd party litigation
(08:18):
financing, close quote. Hebelieves that this is a common
sense measure, and it will bringlawsuit lenders, quote, out from
the shadows and make the factfinders aware that a
disinterested third party has afinancial stake in any verdict,
close quote. Now the presidentof the ATA, that's American
(08:39):
Trucking Association, expectsother states to follow Montana's
lead in, quote, ensuring fulltransparency behind this, what
he calls, a perverse and shadypractice, close quote.
Obviously, that's one side ofthis, of this issue. Proponents,
(09:00):
as we discussed in our in ourlast episode, take it take a
different approach.
They contend that, litigationfunding, keeps plaintiffs in the
game longer, levels the playingfield, and it puts, litigants on
on equal footing with,defendants who, are often well
(09:22):
funded. So, Jack, this is arelatively short story. I and I
highlighted it only because, youknow, as we've discussed on the
show, litigation financing is iscertainly on the rise. This is
yet another state. I think thecount is up to, like, maybe or
somewhere around 16, states thatare starting to regulate
litigation, financing in someway, at least making these these
(09:45):
litigation funders kindadisclose who they are.
There's been work at the federallevel, to amend the the rule the
federal rules to disclose theselitigation, financiers. So it
just sort of illustrates wherethis is going. Do you have any
(10:07):
thoughts that you wanna add?
Jack Sanker (10:09):
Yeah. You know what? I I actually, I I do kind
of have a bit of a spicy take onthis. So this this Montana law
is requiring the the automaticdisclosure of any third party
litigation funding. Right?
Luke Behnke (10:23):
That's right.
Jack Sanker (10:24):
And, you know, it's the bill's passed, and, the
folks in Montana whoseinterests, that, you know, this
is intending to serve are,celebrating. What if I told you
that this exact same bill waspassed in Wisconsin, 2 years
ago, and to my knowledge, no onecares? Someone I mean, you
practice mostly in Wisconsin.Does it even come up?
Luke Behnke (10:48):
Well so I'll say this. We've we have started to
include these requests in our inour discovery requests. So, you
know, we ask, we'll askplaintiffs to identify,
litigation, funders. By andlarge, though, Jack, I will say
that it hasn't it to myknowledge, it has not, you know,
(11:12):
delayed resolution of a lawsuit.I don't know if I would go so
far as to say it's a perverseand and shady practice.
Right. But, you know, I I I dothink that it it at least helps
us get a matter to resolution ifwe know who the players are, who
(11:34):
the interested parties are.
Jack Sanker (11:36):
So I think it's definitely relevant, and it's
it's a good, you know, if youwanna know, who the stakeholders
are, what it's gonna take to geta number, you know, to get to
get to a number that's gonnasatisfy everyone. Technically,
you know, under the law, theloan providers, they they
technically have no right tointerfere in that process, but
(11:57):
in practice, it doesn't exactlyalways work that way as we know.
But what I can tell you is infrom from both of us that are
doing this, we actually arelitigating these cases. You get
that information. Great.
You know that there's a, youknow, a loan for x amount of
dollars on the that case. It'snot admissible at trial. It's
not relevant. You know, you whatare you gonna do with that? Are
(12:19):
you gonna you gonna argue that,oh, this this plaintiff owes
money?
Like, that's if anything,that's, you know, arguably
sympathetic, to a plaintiff whohad to borrow money at, like,
this loan shark rate of 30something percent. I'm not
blaming the lenders, by the way,but that's that's what the rate
is. So, you know, I I've seenit. I saw that in Wisconsin when
(12:40):
this bill was passed, the prettymuch the exact same bill, and
and, you know, the kind ofChamber of Commerce adjacent,
like, pro business, interestskind of were celebrating, and
they were saying this is gonna,you know, maybe stop the influx
of of third party finance moneybecause now they have to show
well, I just don't see that ithas had any effect, at all, and
(13:03):
I I don't think it will inMontana. I you know, it's great
to know, I suppose.
It's it's it's interesting toknow, and it can impact maybe
how you make some a fewdecisions while you're actually
working on a given lawsuit, butit is not a smoking gun,
certainly. It doesn't I don'tthink it helps, you know, a
defense at trial very much atall. I don't think it's
(13:23):
admissible or relevant, frankly.So, you know, to the extent that
the folks in Montana think thisis gonna change things, I just
don't think it will.
Luke Behnke (13:33):
Yeah. I'm with you. I it's not a silver bullet. I
think if if progressing towardthe the ultimate goal, which is
to get rid of litigationfinancing altogether I mean,
sort of if that's what theirultimate goal is, yeah, I
suppose this is a step in thatdirection.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
But we
Jack Sanker (13:53):
know that's not hap that's not even close to
happening. It's the opposite ishappening.
Luke Behnke (13:56):
The opposite is happening. And that's that's
that's the point I was gonnamake. You said, look. You know,
if if they thought that thiswould, you know, scare these,
these large funders away fromfunding lawsuits, you know,
well, the opposite has beenhappening. I mean, this business
is from from everything I'veseen, this business is,
(14:20):
exploding, and I don't see I'mI'm with you.
I don't see mandatory disclosureas a a silver bullet for getting
rid of litigation funding. Infact, I think litigation funders
will probably proudly wear thaton their sleeve.
Jack Sanker (14:39):
Yeah. It's, it's free advertising. Exactly.
Luke Behnke (14:47):
Judge Pauline Newman, who we talked about in
the past episode, she's underinvestigation for her
performance on the bench, hassince sued the appeals court's
chief judge and others inWashington Federal Court seeking
to block their investigationinto her fitness to hold office.
Newman, who our listeners mayrecall is 95, alleges in her
(15:11):
complaint that the probeviolates her constitutional
rights, and she denied thatthere were legitimate concerns
about her mental and physicalcapacity. She's asking the
district court to halt ortransfer the investigation.
Judge Newman's lawsuit claimsthat the orders justifying the
probe were, quote, riddled witherrors, close quote, describing
(15:33):
as false, an assertion that shewas hospitalized after having a
heart attack in 2021. Accordingto Reuters, judge Newman says
that she served on more appealspanels than most of her
colleagues and issued at least 8opinions that summer, that's
back in 2021, and that herproductivity has not dropped
over the past 3 years.
(15:54):
The complaint further statesthat the committee investigating
her gave her only a few days tocomply with the requests for
mental evaluations and herprivate medical records, which
she calls a baseless invasion ofher privacy. So, Jack, I don't I
don't suppose that your sort oftake on this has changed much
(16:17):
since our last, discussion, butI thought that it's only fair to
kinda follow-up on this and, andremind everybody that there are
sort of two sides to everystory. Judge Newman here is
clearly not impressed with this,with this investigation.
Jack Sanker (16:37):
Yeah. I I think it's it's good that we're at
least trying to tell the otherside of the story now that we
have a little information. Andit does kinda beg the question,
you know, is if there'ssomething else going on here. I
don't I don't know. I mean, I'mway off the rails speculating
here, but it does not becauseone of these parties is, like,
way wrong, and that's the onlyout you know, one of them is
(17:00):
absolutely full of it.
Be just the way that the factsare being presented, and that to
me is you know, it it doesn'tseem like there's, like, a a
benign misunderstanding. Itseems like one side is
completely off base here, andthat, just smells a little
weird.
Luke Behnke (17:14):
Yeah. I mean, this kind of stuff never becomes
public, and this is this is avery public spat. Curious to see
how this ends up. I mean, that'sthat's sort of that's the really
interesting thing here. Right?
If you've got this investigationinto this judge and she's filing
a, you know, a a complaint, thatsays that, you know, this is a
(17:37):
baseless invasion of herprivacy. Like, how do you walk
any of this stuff back, Jack? Imean, this is like what? Are you
gonna remove a federal judgefrom the bench, you know, and
set a precedent for that? Youknow, I don't know.
I I think, again, me lookinginto my my, crystal ball here.
Judge Newman there's no wayjudge Newman is gonna get
(18:00):
removed from from the federalthey're not gonna remove a
sitting federal judge.
Jack Sanker (18:04):
Absolutely
Luke Behnke (18:05):
agree. So, you know, all you've done really is,
you know, call attention to thisyou made made this this issue
very public and, really upset,someone who served for a very
long time since 1984. She was,she was appointed in 84 by,
president Reagan. Yeah.
Jack Sanker (18:27):
And, I mean, we we we talked about this, our last
episode and, you know, wherethere's really not a great way
to to deal with this scenario,other than, you know, you you
hope behind closed doors. Ifthere really is, you know, a
mental capacity issue, like,there there is a genuine I'm not
suggesting there is here. Idon't know anything about this
judge. But if there actually is,you kinda hope that folks would
(18:48):
just sort of nudge the judge,you know, behind closed doors
and kinda get them tovoluntarily, you know, walk off
into the sunset. To do it thisway is like, you know, something
really must have happened.
And for the judge to, because ifthe, those that are making the
allegations are correct, I mean,this is the biggest example of
(19:10):
not taking the hint that I knowof in the past few years. And
and so, you know, either they'recompletely off base or this or
this judge who is completelyaloof, and, like, I doubt that's
the case because, one, she's afederal judge. 2, I'm sure that
she has attorneys and folks thatare working on her behalf and
she's consulting with and whohave told her that this was a
(19:31):
good idea to file this. So it itI don't know, man. It's really
interesting to see how thishappened.
You don't see anything likethis. I I don't remember ever
seeing anything like thisbefore. It's it's really, you
know, dirty laundry of thefederal judiciary just being
aired in public.
Luke Behnke (19:46):
Yeah. As we outlined last time, there's
there are, precious few examplesof federal judges being removed
from the bench, in the past.I'll keep an eye on it and, and
update everyone because I agreeit is a it's interesting because
it's rare.
Jack Sanker (20:05):
Most of you probably have heard of or
remember the McDonald's hotcoffee case from the nineties.
If not, go ahead and Google it.It was, to me, the first lawsuit
that I actually remember,learning about, And this was I
would have been, like, 6 yearsold when the hot coffee case was
(20:25):
in the news, like, 6 or 8 yearsold around then. I remember it
was the hot coffee case, and itwas the OJ trial, or, like, the
2 things that are, like, in mymind is, like, learning what a
lawsuit was. Back in thenineties, there's a woman who
spilled a a cup of boiling hotwhat turns out to be, like,
boiling hot coffee on her lap.
She suffered actually a lot ofhorrendous injuries because of
it. There's a lawsuit. There'spunitive damages awarded, and a
(20:47):
lot of people didn't like that.It it was kind of a a cultural
touchstone for a while. Like,the late night TV host, like,
poked fun at her for spillingcoffee on herself.
But when you look into itfurther, it turns out, you know,
there may have actually beensome wrongdoing here. Anyways,
it's worth it. It's a it's agreat cultural touchstone of the
the nineties if you wanna putyourself in that headspace.
(21:07):
Finally, we have our own versionnow. Us, millennials and and, I
guess, the younger generations.
We have our own McDonald's hotfood case, and this is a hot
chicken nugget. On May 12th,which is today as we're
recording this, a jury in FortLauderdale found that McDonald's
and the franchise operator forthe specific McDonald's, liable
(21:29):
for an injury that allegedlyoccurred when a McDonald's
chicken nugget fell onto agirl's leg causing second degree
burns. The girl was, I believe,4 years old at the time. Jury
found McDonald's liable forfailing to provide instructions
for handling hot food. Thefranchise operator liable for
negligence and failing to warncustomers about the hot food.
And here's kind of just a quickand dirty summary of the facts
(21:52):
here. The mother of the injureddaughter, her name is miss
Holmes, bought her daughter aHappy Meal. The girl was about 4
years old. She handed her theHappy Meal, and then as the car
drove away, the little girlstarted screaming. Miss Holmes
took photos and videos fromimmediately after the accident
showing the burn and the child'sscreams were actually played in
(22:14):
court.
The child is autistic, and shedid not testify. What's
interesting is both sidesactually agreed that the nugget
the chicken nugget caused theburns. There wasn't a dispute
on, you know, kind of the keyfacts on liability here, or on
causation at least. They foughtover how hot the chicken nugget
actually was. McDonald's said itwas no more than 160 degrees.
(22:35):
The plaintiff said it was over200 degrees. Regardless, they
agree that this chicken nuggetburn, the second degree burn in
her leg, which is a partialthickness burn of the epidermis
and dermis. And as we sit heretoday, the case has been
bifurcated on liability anddamages. This was the liability
trial, so we know that there isliability. The actual second
trial is set for this summer ondamages alone.
(22:58):
And when I came across thiscase, I was just transported
back to being, you know, 7 or 8years old and listening to my
dad complain about how a, awoman can spill hot coffee on
herself and get a $100,000,000and how that was, you know, that
wasn't fair, etcetera. And, thenI went to law school and learned
all about that case. And now nowwe got our own to think about,
Luke.
Luke Behnke (23:18):
That's right. And same. So my dad, you know,
firefighter captain on the firedepartment growing up, you know,
big proponent of personalresponsibility. And so he he's
kind of that guy that's like,look. That's that's what this
country has come to.
This is America these days. Youknow? You can just, you know, go
stub your toe and sue someonefor $200,000,000. It's like,
yeah, that you know? Were yousitting on the jury?
(23:40):
No. Alright. You have no ideawhat you're talking about. You
know? The the facts of thatcoffee case are actually pretty
compelling if you if youactually dig into it.
But, yeah, the PR spin aroundit, made it It
Jack Sanker (23:50):
was, like, spoofed on, like, Saturday night live
at, like, Letterman. Like, theymade fun of this woman for,
like, years after this. I mean,the PR that that McDonald's was
able to pull off is, you know,pretty impressive from their
perspective, especially after,like, the, you know,
$100,000,000 verdict or whateverit was.
Luke Behnke (24:07):
So I'm wondering yeah. I mean, I again, this is
the same sort of situation.Right? I don't I don't really
know the facts of this case.But, man, if if a chicken nugget
is putting, like, 2nd degreeburns on your leg, you know, I
don't call me crazy, but that'stoo hot.
Right, Jack?
Jack Sanker (24:24):
Yeah. It shouldn't have. It's like, regardless of
what happened, you know, how itended up on the girl's leg,
like, you shouldn't be handed aa radioactive chicken nugget.
You know? Like, Manny, itshouldn't it shouldn't be that
hot, like, no matter what.
Right. And if it is, like, letit sit for a minute before you
give it to the to the thecustomer. Like, let it sit. So,
(24:46):
so, yeah, I mean, I actuallyespecially because McDonald's
appears to have rolled over on,you know, on the causation
aspect and and and the fact thatit did cause a burn. In my mind,
I'm like, well, it's it's ahappy meal, which means it's
it's it's got a little toy init.
It's, like, intended for littlekids. You know? That in
particular jumps out to me as,like, a factor. I didn't see it
(25:07):
discussed in anything I read,but I bet it was a trial that
this was, like, a product that'sdesigned and marketed towards
little kids. And then you'regonna put, like, an actual on
fire piece of meat in there andhand it to them.
Like, it's only a matter of timebefore someone gets burned. So,
yeah. I mean, we'll see whathappens. I'm really interested
in the damages portion of thistrial. Hope the little girl's
(25:28):
okay, obviously.
But I'll I'll be interested tosee if there's a discussion on
punitives, the same way thatthere was in the original hot
coffee case. And then I'll beinterested to see if the media,
how they spin it this timearound and see, you know,
whether things have even changedat all since the nineties.
Luke Behnke (25:43):
So that's something interesting that you raised
here, and maybe maybe that'ssomething that you can explain
for the listeners, Jack. Sothere's compensatory damages,
and then there's punitivedamages. So even if the injury
itself isn't horrible, right, Imean or it's it's not permanent,
it's temporary, there'scompensatory damages for that.
But the really big numbers comeout when you're talking about
(26:06):
punitive damages. It's 2different things.
Jack Sanker (26:09):
Yeah. And and there's, you know, there's
there's case law on this whichdescribes when each is
appropriate and when what typesof cases where punitive damages
can even be sought. But ingeneral, in an injury case, in
most states, there's aheightened pleading standard, a
heightened standard of proof youhave to show. Something along
the lines of, like, willful andwant in conduct or reckless
(26:30):
disregard, which is a stephigher than negligence. So you
can't you can't get punitives ifyou prove that it was there was
just a breach of a duty of care.
You have to prove that thatbreach was caused by a neglect
to the level of being willful.And so you'll get punitives in
(26:50):
cases where the tort fees or thethe bad actor, the person who's
at fault, maybe knew that thisbad thing was gonna happen and
and did it anyways. So in thefamous, you know, hot coffee
case, the punitives in that casewere based on the fact that lots
of other people had been burnedby that scalding hot coffee, and
they just continued to hand itout anyways, but they didn't
(27:12):
change their practices. And thenthere was more evidence. I I
believe that the temp thetemperature in that coffee was,
like, at that, temp to dissuadepeople from taking advantage of
the limitless refills, because,like, because the coffee took so
long to cool down because it waspractically boiling that, like,
you'd have to sit there allmorning if you wanted to get a
refill.
(27:33):
And so that was, like, the basisfor the punitives in that case.
In this case, I don't know. Imean, I I have no idea. But,
Yeah. I I suspect that therewill be a discussion on,
punitives, you know, if one'sgoes to trial in, I think it's
set for trial in July.
(27:56):
Thanks, everyone. That's theshow. Reminder, you can always
find us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, YouTube, wherever you
get your your podcast, newepisodes drop every other
Tuesday and we'll talk to younext week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!