Recently Mitch needed to depose his client’s supervisor, who had received a Nobel Prize in Physics. The university, where his client worked, had alleged that she had been terminated because of her poor performance. Mitch needed to find out what the Nobel Prize winner would testify, concerning his client’s performance.
The last time Mitch studied physics was during his senior year in high school, and he barely passed the course. Thus, preparing for the deposition of a Nobel Prize winner in physics, Mitch was extremely nervous. He worried that he would be unable to ask the right questions or understand the supervisor’s answers.
The Nobel Prize winner first testified that Mitch’s client had performed poorly; and the work she did do, was very basic and not very valuable to him. Then during a break of the “Zoom” deposition, Mitch’s client, who was at her home in Canada, emailed him a copy of an article, which had been published in the most respected international physics journal, after she had been terminated.
Mitch’s client had underlined four paragraphs in the journal for Mitch to emphasize when he continued his questioning of her supervisor. The Nobel Prize winner contradicted his earlier testimony, by agreeing that this article illustrated that all the work done for it was done by the “two of us”. He confirmed that the “two of us referred” to him and Mitch’s client. Moreover, the Nobel Prize winner admitted Mitch’s client was listed as an author of the article.
Mitch had clearly shown that his client was a good performer and the alleged reason she had been terminated was a sham or pretextual. Mitch was pleasantly surprised, that his lack of knowledge in the area of physics, did not prevent him from illustrating that the Nobel Prize winner was not a credible deponent.