Grant & Eisenhofer SECURES $14M verdict award

In a landmark legal battle, the formidable team at Grant & Eisenhofer has successfully secured a $14 million verdict award, marking a significant victory in the case of Oyedapo vs. University of Chicago Hospital. This case, presided over by the Honorable James M. Varga, a Circuit Judge in Courtroom 2406 at the Daley Center, has drawn considerable attention for its complexity and the precedent it sets for future litigation.

The trial, a testament to the skill and dedication of the legal team at Grant & Eisenhofer, showcased the expertise of attorneys Charlie Bletsas and William Moore. Their argumentation and legal strategy were instrumental in swaying the verdict in their client's favor, demonstrating their commitment to justice and their client's welfare.

Behind the scenes, the success of the trial was bolstered by an exceptional support team. Trial presentation support was provided by Joey Watson and James Herrity, whose contributions were crucial in navigating the intricacies of the legal process. Graphic design expert Michele Gervolino played a pivotal role in presenting the case, utilizing visual aids to convey complex information effectively and persuasively to the jury.

Additionally, off-site support from Chris Dinan of LitOptix added another layer of depth to the team's capabilities, ensuring smooth operations and coordination throughout the trial. The hard work and dedication of paralegal Julie Groeper also deserve special mention, as her organizational skills and attention to detail were vital components of the trial's success.

Facing off against the seasoned legal team from Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, based in Chicago, IL, the Grant & Eisenhofer team demonstrated their legal acumen and determination. The opposing counsel, known for their rigorous defense strategies, presented a formidable challenge that was met with skillful negotiation and persuasive argumentation.

This victory not only signifies a monumental win for the client but also reinforces Grant & Eisenhofer's reputation as a powerhouse in legal advocacy. The firm's ability to secure such a substantial verdict award underscores their position as a leading force in the legal community, capable of handling complex and high-stakes litigation with unparalleled expertise.

As the dust settles on this significant legal triumph, the implications of the Oyedapo vs. University of Chicago Hospital case are far-reaching. It sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, highlighting the importance of meticulous preparation, teamwork, and strategic legal thinking. The success of this case is a testament to the dedication, skill, and perseverance of all involved, from the attorneys to the support staff, who together achieved a remarkable victory in the pursuit of justice.

in-person jury trials resume in Florida

Southern District Of Florida Is Open For Business
Friday, May 13, 2021

The last time I stepped foot into a courtroom for trial, I was supporting a copyright trial with partners at Winston & Strawn. We were successful in our endeavors, but the closer we were getting to Marth 13th the tension of the novel COVID-19 virus in New York City was ramping up. There were no masks, no social distancing, and increasing anxiety over the last few days of trial as we raced against the clock to be the final trial in the Southern District of New York.

Almost a full 14 months later, I had the pleasure of supporting the first case in the entire Southern District of Florida. Working with the fantastic litigation duo of Katie Phang (of MSNBC fame) and Jonathan Feldman of Phang & Feldman we opened up the SDFL with an unequivocal win. While not much has changed substantively, there were many logistical hurdles. Many of which we will outline below.

The first thing I noticed, is since the courthouse itself was empty, the cafeteria was closed. As soon as you walk up to security there is a non-contact temperature assessment device. This device takes some time to use. Given that it is right at security, I suggest accounting for some additional time getting inside the courthouse. As with almost every other commercial building in South Florida, masks are required for entry.

We were stationed in Judge Seitz’s courtroom (11-4, Miami), as it was properly pre-designed for our pilot case with Judge Ungaro presiding. The courtroom came fully equipped with a lot of plexiglass, and four Intellipure large commercial air purifiers strategically located throughout the room. The counsel tables were alongside one another on the opposite side of the courtroom, facing the jury. There was a large plexiglass divider to separate Plaintiff counsel table and the podium.

Some of the logistical differences during voir dire were as follows:

• Jurors sat one seat apart from one another, each had their own monitor.

• During voir dire, the Courtroom Deputy Katherine passed the microphone to each juror only after wiping it with a bleach wipe.

• Each juror was provided with a microphone cover of their own when answering judge’s queries.

• Everyone in the courtroom was required to wear a mask throughout trial, except for the testifying witness.

• Witness sat in front of the judge (by the clerk), where the court reporter would normally sit. Court reporter sat in the witness stand.

Counsel selected a jury in record speed. The court had included a question on the jury questionnaire seeking specific COVID information related to symptoms and vaccination status. Due to masks and social distancing, vaccination statuses weren’t a deterrent for jury service. We sat 8 jurors out of the 13 initially provided to us for the morning session. We were offered an initial pool of 25.

The trial proceeded in a typical fashion with a few differences. The witnesses were allowed to shed their masks to enable the jury’s ability to see facial expressions and clearly hear testimony. Questioning attorneys on the other hand still needed to don a mask. This presented some issues when attempting to hear counsel from time to time, but it wasn’t a great obstacle when looking at the big picture and being able to proceed with litigation in a post-COVID world. There were no hard copy exhibits, so counsel and the judge discussed what exhibits we would be using in advance of witness authentication to pre-admit as many of the exhibits as possible.

Under normal circumstances, the jury would retire to their designated jury room during breaks and deliberation. Due to space constraints, the jury room was reserved as counsel restroom, and the jury would spend their breaks socially distanced in the hallway with a court officer on watch. The jury would also deliberate in a different courtroom for spatial reasons.

At the close of the case, the jury had the ability to give their thoughts on the Southern District’s new COVID protocols. Safe to say, they echoed all of my thoughts. They felt very safe. The only criticism was that they would have preferred that the questioning attorney also not be required to wear a mask.

As a trial presentation expert, I was very excited to be back in a courtroom and very interested to see what new logistical hurdles may or may not be in our future. I’m happy to report, aside from the courtroom temperature and wearing a mask all day, it was a great experience. SDFL has put a lot of thought into how to move forward with litigation in this new normal. And that thoughtfulness has paid off. I rule that this pilot case was a success.

James Herrity, LitOptix