The Litigation Consulting Report

by Ken Lopez The courtroom is a forum where issue advocacy is enhanced by persuasive litigation graphics. However, other settings exist where attorneys, consultants, politicians, lobbyists and advocacy organizations must persuade skeptical audiences. This article focuses on the creation of advocacy graphics for a particular issue: hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking. Advocacy or lobbying graphics are especially valuable as the material may be used to educate a potential jury pool, to persuade and inform government officials and to support settlement negotiations. These advocacy presentations may be distributed via PowerPoint, YouTube or even delivered in person from an iPad®.

In trial presentation graphics, a great deal can depend on the quantity of data that is presented to the jury and on the way in which it is presented. For example, it has become conventional wisdom that humans generate pollution in the form of carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide and other pollutants cause a greenhouse effect on the planet, and that this effect noticeably raises global temperatures and/or causes climate change. Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, cemented this belief in the minds of the public and future jurors, largely through the use of effective visual presentations. The U.S. Government chart below captures the conventional wisdom well. As large quantities of carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere with rapid industrialization in the past 100 years or so, global temperatures went up, it shows.

The art and science of animated trial graphics has evolved dramatically over the past 10 years. Animation used to refer only to 3-D animations that were produced with programs such as Autodesk Maya or Autodesk 3ds Max, formerly 3D Studio MAX. Now a much broader array of animation tools is available to the courtroom animator, and each one has its own niche and its own strong points. We are able to provide animations of all of these varieties in-house, and we work with our clients to select the one that is best in terms of persuasive power, applicability to the problem at hand, and cost. We have done this since 1995. PowerPoint Animation

The world is watching in shock as a nuclear drama unfolds in northeastern Japan. In only a few days, most of us have somehow come to accept that there are degrees of a nuclear meltdown and that explosions at a nuclear power plant may not always point to a cataclysmic outcome. A week ago, those beliefs would have been unthinkable. Then, nuclear power was a binary condition: it was either safe, clean and efficient, or it was Chernobyl, with no in between. Even in the safest of times, generating power through nuclear energy presents major challenges. One of the key challenges is handling the inevitable nuclear waste, primarily spent nuclear fuel. After conducting extensive studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. Government thought it had found an answer. In 1983, the U.S. Government contracted with operators of nuclear power plants to begin picking up nuclear waste starting in 1998 and storing it in a central facility. The U.S. Government had then agreed to become the primary shipping and storage mechanism for the nuclear power industry. The plan was to store nuclear waste at the now defunct Yucca Mountain storage facility located about 100 miles from Las Vegas. Ultimately, fears of geologic instability at the site combined with election-year politics doomed the project. So, instead of one underground facility located on the site where 904 atomic bomb tests have already been conducted, America is left with more than 100 storage sites around the country where nuclear waste is stored in pools or barrels. When the U.S. Government breached their agreement to pick up the nuclear waste, operators of nuclear power plants sued. In this line of cases, the question is not whether a breach has occurred, but rather how much it will cost the facility to store the waste if that is even possible. Animators at Law has been involved in quite a number of these spent fuel cases typically heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Below are some litigation graphics from these cases. The animation below shows the removal of a reactor pressure vessel. When a plant must be closed due to age or due to an inability to store more waste, the reactor pressure vessel may be removed. The boiling water reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant use a similar reactor pressure vessel. Originally created in PowerPoint using dozens of technical illustrations played in succession, this litigation animation shows two methods of removing the reactor pressure vessel that contains the plant's nuclear core. The trial exhibits below are shown as a screen capture of some PowerPoint litigation graphics. These trial exhibits analogize the problem an automobile service station would have if its used oil collection stopped to the spent nuclear fuel storage problem faced by nuclear power plant operators. Further, it helps make the case that costs do not stop with storage (as the U.S. Government contends) but also include indirect and overhead costs related to storage (e.g. security, accounting and management). Animators at Law has helped its clients recover hundreds of millions of dollars in spent nuclear fuel litigation cases, and effective litigation graphics have been key to this success. For more on how nuclear power works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power To learn more about the crisis in Japan or to make a donation: http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html

Part 2 of 2 ( go to part 1) I will begin by reiterating key elements of the first post in this this two part series. More than 20 years ago, the Justice Department began filing lawsuits against a large number of coal fired power plants based on a Clean Air Act provision called New Source Review (NSR). The NSR process calls on power plant operators to seek EPA review and approval before making modifications to their power plant that would significantly increase emissions. An exception exists routine maintenance. Since Congress neglected to define routine and significant, litigation has followed over these definitions. Animators at Law has worked on many of these cases and created trial graphics and legal animations. I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation used in the opening of an NSR bench trial in 2003. We worked on behalf of the power plant owner in this matter. We faced multiple challenges such as: conveying the scale of the plant; explaining the plant's operation; showing how the projects in question were not large; showing how these projects were in fact routine maintenance; showing how none of the projects increased emissions. After the Justice Department opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks, we had to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. With billions of dollars at stake, Animators at Law prepared a large number of trial boards and legal animations for the case. In part one of this post, I shared how Animators at Law compared the size of the facility to Busch Stadium using legal animations. Below is an example of how we combined technical illustration with a legal animation overlay to provide an overview of the plant, to explain how the plant worked and to again emphasize scale. Below is a trial exhibit used in an NSR trial that effectively compared the routine maintenance of the bridge to the routine maintenance at a coal fired power plant. We think it was a very effective analogy and a leading environmental publication agreed and remarked on its use. Below is another legal animation showing some highly skilled 3-D modeling and animation used in another New Source Review Case. The 3-D model was used in other legal animations and graphics to explain the unique geography of the plant.

Part 1 of 2 (go to part 2) In the 1990's the DOJ/EPA initiated litigation against a large number of coal-fired power plants based on the New Source Review (NSR) process under the Clean Air Act. Among other things, the NSR process requires operators of coal-fired power plants to seek EPA review and approval to make modifications to their plant that would increase emissions. Exceptions exist for routine maintenance at the plant and any emission increase must also be significant. Unfortunately, Congress neglected to define routine and significant. Animators at Law has been called upon to create legal animations and other information design focused trial graphics in a number of these cases. These cases typically have billions of dollars at stake, and the more EPA-friendly the current presidential administration, the more cases get filed. In this two-part post, I want to share portions of a 13-minute animation created for use in opening in one of these NSR bench trials. We worked on behalf of the power plant operator in this matter, and we faced a Government trial team who came armed with their own legal animation. Throughout the history of NSR cases, the Government has taken the position that any big change at the plant requires EPA approval. This includes large parts that are changed routinely. It turns out, however, that most parts in a plant this size are large, and the government argues that by maintaining the plant, one is extending its operating life thus increasing emissions. The Government opened its case with an animation that compared the size of parts changed during routine maintenance to elephants, houses and semi-trucks. Our challenge was to make the point that while large parts were changed, they are relatively small in the context of such a large facility. We knew two things that were helpful in this bench trial. First, the government was comparing our parts to semi-trucks. Second, the judge was known to visit the old Busch Stadium where the St. Louis Cardinals played and where semi-trucks were often parked outside. The message delivered by the clip below in opening was: yes, we changed big parts, but everything at our plant is big, thus we must ask, big compared to what? Is a semi-truck really that big compared to not one Busch Stadium but twenty? I think this legal animation reflects a good use of information design to convey scale when billions of dollars where at stake.