20th Annual Federal Court Boot Camp: The Nuts and Bolts (CA) (Recorded Package and OnDemand streaming)

What You Will Learn

Part 1: Tuesday, April 30, 2024
12:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

Judges will comment throughout the program.

12:45 p.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Intro to Federal Court
Laurie Smith and Randy Grossman

• Practical differences between State Court and Federal Court Practice
• Material differences among California’s Federal Districts
• Highlights from the Local Rules and local practice
• Rule 1

 1:15 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.
Complaints, Answers, Removal and Remand
Laurie Smith and Adam Shea

• Plausibility Standard: Rule 8’s Short and Plain Statement
• Forms of Complaints and Answers/Defenses
• Defenses vs. Affirmative Defenses
• Practice Pointers and Pitfalls
• Removal
• Remand
• Case Management Reports
• Rule 16.1: Pretrial Discovery Conference

2:15 p.m. – 2:25 p.m.
10 Min Break

2:25 p.m. – 3:25 p.m.
Rule 12
Kate Lazarus

• Top ten tips for drafting Rule 12(b)(6) motions, responses, and replies
• How to enhance the effectiveness of memoranda addressing motions to dismiss
• How to address procedural issues that frequently arise when briefing motions to dismiss
• Additional Rule 12 motions discussed

3:25 p.m. – 3:35 p.m.
10 Min BREAK

3:35 p.m. – 4:35 p.m.
Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJs), Ex Parte Motions and Injunctive Relief
Laurie Smith and Marc Lewis

• Drafting
• Timing
• Tips
• What judges want, need and don’t want to see
• Oral Argument
• Ex Parte Motions
• TROs and Preliminary Injunctions

4:35 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
Final Questions / Comments 

Part 2: Thursday, May 2, 2024
12:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. 

Judges will comment throughout the program.

12:45 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Discovery & eDiscovery
Meghan Féronie Loisel and Joseph Farris 

• CM/ECF brief overview/advice
• Interrogatories and Requests for Production
• How to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the case after reviewing discovery
• 2015 Amendments to the FRCP
  • Scope of discovery / proportionality
  • Requests for production and responses
  • Failure to preserve / sanctions
  • How courts have interpreted them
• E-discovery
  • Overview and considerations
  • Sources and preservation
  • Authentication
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 502

2:00 p.m. – 2:10 p.m.
10 Min BREAK

2:10 p.m. – 3:10 p.m.
Depositions
Chaya Mandelbaum

• Online depos
• Federal v. State differences
• Subpoenas & affidavits
• Deadlines
• Strategy and deciding whom to depose
• Taking good depositions
• Making effective use of depositions at trial or for settlement 

3:10 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
5 Min break

3:15 – 3:55
Pre-Trial Matters
Agustin D. Orozco

• Pretrial Conference and Order – FRCP 16
• Trial Briefs
• Pretrial Statement
• Motions in Limine
• Client and witness prep.
• Your Jury
  • What is unique about Jury Selection in Federal Court?
  • Questionnaire and Voir Dire
  • Jury Instructions in Federal Court
  • Jury Verdict Forms in Federal Court

3:55 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
Your Trial
Jennie Wang VonCannon

• Introduction of Exhibits, including foundation and admissibility
• Evidentiary Objections
• Direct and Cross-Examinations
  • Purpose, audience and format requirements
  • Basic direct examination skills
  • Basic cross examination skills
  • Strategies and advice
  • Mistakes to avoid

Testimonials

“Terrific program. It’s been a while since I handled federal court cases, and this has been an excellent brush up and update, plus the tips from very experienced practitioners are invaluable.” – Linda M. Battram, Esq.

“Good variety of panelists, good mix of opinion and specific procedures.” – Thomas McCarrick, Esq.

“I enjoyed the practical nature of the presentation and the back and forth discussion. The panel put together was an excellent combination of different experiences. I loved hearing from the Judges, who were both practitioners, the clerk who generally deals with the various motions, and the various attorneys from both sides plaintiff and defense.” – Cynthia D. Vargas, Esq.

“Information is succinct. Easy to understand. Lots of really good information. Nice to get insight from practitioners as well as a judge’s perspective.” – Dawn M. Reitsma, Esq.

“Excellent program — very good, practical advice.” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“Good overall information about federal court practice. Helpful insights and tips.” – John P. Yasuda, Esq.

“Great to hear insights from judges and experienced practitioners, and a very experienced law clerk with private practice experience. The Q& A sessions were great to hear.” – Tracy Woo, Esq.

“Excellent and diverse speakers. The two judges really gave credibility to the topic.” – Derrick James McKain, Esq.

“This was one of the most interesting, helpful and useful MCLE programs I have ever attended! Good coverage of practical topics.” – Harvie Schrieber, Esq.

“It was a great refresher on the federal rules and the panelists had great anecdotes from personal experience. My federal practice is heating up so a refresher was needed.” – Page Allinson, Esq.

“This is a great survey course regarding differences between state and federal court. Judge Olguin’s comments always included practical advice that is extremely helpful and adds to the topics substantially. He is great. Judge Segal had the best, most substantive interjections. I’d go to any discussions or lectures led by her. Excellent!” – Grace Lau, Esq.

“Invaluable to have the judge’s advice and opinions.” – Genevieve Coyle, Esq.

“Highlighting differences between State and Federal Court procedures in California was extremely helpful.”

“It was a really good seminar.  Very good. Thank you. It provided me very valuable assistance with the Rule 16 and 26 issues.” – Olivia Bissell, Esq.

“Great program! Very informative and interesting. Looking forward to future seminars.” – Iveta Ovsepyan, Esq.

“I am a new lawyer. This was a great course to help put many things in focus. Gave me great advice.” – Jeshawna R. Harrell, Esq.

“Great outlines for future reference. Concise presentation format. Very well done. Knowledgeable speakers.” – Michael Caballero, Esq.

“I am fully satisfied. This was a great primer for practicing in Federal Court. This was one of the best seminars that I’ve been to in my 13 years of practicing law. It makes me want to never go to state court ever again.” – Richard Jefferson, Esq.

“I didn’t know much about federal civil practice, so it was nice to get a start to finish overview. It wasn’t overwhelming. It was a good procedural overview with practical tips.” – Kree D. Filer, Esq.

“The panelists covered every important topic in-depth. Thank you for having this seminar!” – Ari Kaufman, Esq.

“Good recap of basics of federal practice with useful pointers. Proper depth given the breadth of subjects.” – Matthew Roman, Esq.

“Engaging speakers and course material was presented in a concise and clear way.”

“Great topics, excellent speakers.” – Brittany Toth, Esq.

“Great seminar and very useful materials/handouts.” – Andrew Browning, Esq. 

“Very informative.” – W. Ethan McCallum, Esq.  

“Excellent overview of issues practicing in federal court’s three common pitfalls.” – Christopher Young, Esq.  

“I really enjoyed listening to the practitioner’s trial tips.”

“Very informative and definitely worth your time.” – Jesse Ruiz, Esq.

“As a state court criminal defense attorney, I found the review of FRCP helpful.”

“I specifically enjoyed the practical experiences shared by the presenters.” – Joe Anglin, Esq.

“I thought the program was informative, particularly when discussing motion strategy.” – Paul Thomas, Esq.

“A really good webinar, with great speakers.” – Luca Prisciandaro, Esq.

“I found the program very helpful as presenters shared personal experiences.” – Joseph V. Anglin, Esq.

“Excellent and well-rounded panel.” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“I like the resources that were provided by the speakers; great, clear, concise presentations; a great boot camp for fed court practice.” 

“Very interesting.” – Francisco A. Suarez, Esq.

“Excellent! Will be back! Everyone was great!” – David A. Wolf, Esq.

“Completely satisfied. This was outstanding!” – Nancy Woods, Esq.

“I like having the law clerk and judges’ perspectives.”

“Great program! Really informative!” – Deborah Gettleman, Esq.

“Loved it!” – Jugpreet Mann, Esq.

“All speakers were good – especially the judge and the law clerk.” – Ann Hull, Esq.

“Great program. Thanks!” – Sean Ryan Broderick, Esq.

“Great to hear the perspective of a clerk. I found the voire dire tips to be very helpful. Loved the 8 components for opening statement and the points on evidence and cross-examination.” – Michelle Rahban, Esq.

“A very good program. All the speakers were helpful and informative.” – Richard Stoll, Esq.

“Very helpful and instructive.” – Gregory Yu, Esq.

“Great refresher course and helpful practical advice.” – Matthew Peters, Esq.

“Presentation was well-done and informative. The insights of the panel members was enlightening.” – Joseph A. Gordon, Esq.

“As a mother and a lawyer, I felt very respected and valued by Pincus. The rallying cry for equality for women is ‘The future is female.’ Well, that future looks like the way Venus and Grace treat your customers.” – Maha Ibrahim, Esq.

“It was great! Thank you!” – Ashleigh Musser, Esq.

“Very good speakers.” – Susan Horst, Esq.

“Well done, head to toe.” – John Cammack, Esq.

“This was a well-done presentation. Very informative.” – Philip John Downs Jr, Esq.

“The entire panel did a great job and delivered well.” –Tom Borchard, Esq.

“I was very satisfied!” – Courtney Arbucci, Esq.

“Highly satisfied. Hearing from multiple clerks was helpful.” – Tim O’Connor, Esq.

“Very satisfied – gave me what I wanted. Basic info with strategic uses.” – Joseph Charles, Esq.

“Very good, candid advice.” – Daniel Zarchy, Esq.

“Great job. Very informative and well presented.” – Jonathan T. Dawson, Esq.

“I really enjoyed the program and the speakers. Having a judicial clerk was also extremely valuable.” – Dana Ulise, Esq.

“Very good tune-up for me – I haven’t  practiced in federal court in 10 years.”

“The program was incredibly helpful.”

“Offering differing viewpoints of each party in an action is very informative.”

“Great speakers. I thoroughly enjoyed the information.” – Marty Nicholson, Esq.

“Excellent.” – Megan Irish, Esq.

“Very practical information. Very helpful for negotiating the federal arena.” – Helene Friedman, Esq.

“A great primer for both new and experienced attorneys.” – Peter Ton, Esq.

“This was helpful, especially as an introduction to federal practice. I wish I had taken this course a few months early, I feel like I absorbed much of this through trial and error in the last few months.” – Matthew Slentz, Esq.

“Great CLE.”  – James Howard, Esq.

“Great presentation! Very informative!” – Kari Martin Higgins, Esq.

“Excellent.” – John P. Yasuda, Esq.

“Great information, very helpful.” – Oianka McElmurry, Esq.

“Good review and  run-down of the issues.” – Daniel Marsh, Esq.

“What a great concept to have the clerks conduct the seminar! So informative!” – Neyleen Beljajev, Esq.

“All the faculty were top notch – very professional and informative and competent.” – Paul Carreras, Esq.

“Good information regarding the different FRCP. Very Satisfied.” – Michelle J. Smythe, Esq.

“This was a good re-introduction; Very informative and insightful for someone looking to learn the ins & outs of Federal Court.” – Eric Wills, Esq.

“I was very pleased with this program. It is definitely worth the money and travel!” – Christina Milligan

“Very informative and concise.:” – Andrea Marcus, Esq.

“Important subject for practitioners in Federal Court. Good topic, good speakers.” – D. David Steele, Esq.

“Very enjoyable and knowledgeable seminar! Thank you!” – Aman A. Lal, Esq.

“Excellent program.” – Kori Macksoud, Esq.

“The speakers were good at recognizing the variety of lawyers in the audience.” – Phyra McCandless, Esq.

“I’m new to Federal Court. This program offered a good introduction.” – Katherine Broderick, Esq.

“Each speaker gave great examples…and I appreciated the fact that there were attorneys representing the plaintiff side and the defense side. I appreciated the insight of both judges. It was great to have them attend! This is a great seminar for Federal Court beginners or a refresher for seasoned veterans in Federal Court.” – Nicole Dennewitz, Paralegal

“An excellent program.” – Barbara Reardon, Esq.

“I am no longer afraid to practice in federal court.”

“It was a good boot camp covering the basics, and it gave me a good insight into judicial thinking.”

“I enjoyed the CLE program and found the dialogue between the speakers very informative.”

“Very good – no boring, droning lecturing. Kept me engaged throughout. Women and a diverse panel – yay! Thanks for a great program.”

“The program was great. It was just the kind of ‘refresher’ I was looking for. I appreciated each speaker’s stories and tips. Hearing stories is such a great way to learn and remember.”

“The war stories and practitioners’ points are honestly the most helpful parts.”

“Good variety of subject matter and perspectives.”

“Information is succinct. Easy to understand. Lots of really good information. Nice to get insight from practitioners as well as a judge’s perspective.”

“Another very thorough crash-course put on by Pincus. Very helpful!”

“Part 2 was great, just like Part 1. Each panelist had unique experience and perspective that I appreciated.”

“I like the resources that were provided by the speakers; great, clear, concise presentations; a great boot camp for fed court practice.” 

“Really outstanding speakers and topics.”  

“Thoroughly covered the topics I was interested in, speakers communicated very clearly and were very knowledgeable.” 

“Overall time was well spent as a refresher for us gray hairs or an introduction for newbies.” 

“Because I’ve just started litigating and I’m in both state and federal court, the distinctions between state and federal court practice were the most helpful.”

“Very informative & well presented.”

“Enjoyed listening to each speaker and their experience.”

“Wonderful insight from highly experienced persons. I liked that it was conversational with various people chiming in. That doesn’t always work in these trainings, but it was well executed with this group at least. Kept things interesting whereas sometimes more structured trainings can get dry.”

“A very good program. I’ve been practicing for 12 years, but recently transitioned from almost all state court cases to federal court cases. I was worried the program might be geared towards brand new attorneys, but I found most of the information helpful.”

“Great speakers, very informative and comprehensive.”

“I found the program very helpful as presenters shared personal experiences
Was excellent and very informative.”

“All speakers were very knowledgeable. I appreciated hearing from the judge’s perspective, as well as Chaya’s as a Plaintiffs’ attorney vs. the other attorneys.”

“Judge Segal’s input to the panel’s advice was always welcome and appreciated. Laurie Smith consistently and effectively provided insightful remarks throughout the day. She’s an excellent panelist.”

“Today was EXCELLENT, thank you!”

““Great – very valuable and practical advice (particularly to hear the judges’ thoughts on particular motions, standards, etc.).”

“Speakers and materials were very knowledgeable and interesting.”

“It was great!”

“Very helpful, practical, and all-encompassing.”  

“Good practical information.”

“Fabulous.”

“Good mix of Bench, plaintiff and defense bar perspectives.”

“Everything was great and very informative.”

“I specifically enjoyed the practical experiences shared by the presenters.”

“Great speakers, very informative.”

“I thought the program was informative, particularly when discussing motion strategy.”

“This was helpful, especially as an introduction to federal practice. I wish I had taken this course a few months early, I feel like I absorbed much of this through trial and error in the last few months.”

“Very helpful to have judges’ perspectives along with practitioners.”

“I think the program is great and does what it needs to do.”

“I thought the content was a great overview. I really liked the case-specific examples and pointers that the speakers drew on during their discussion.”

“The content was excellent and the speakers were outstanding.”

“Felt it was extremely useful and met every expectation.”

“Great program!”

“I thought the program and presentation were excellent. We just filed a Rule 26 Disclosure today and I’m feeling pretty confident about what we did after listening to this. I enjoyed all the speakers but especially appreciated the observations of the Honorable Karen Stevenson.”

“I really enjoyed the advice about the tone of federal courts generally, and also how to prepare witnesses.”

“I thought all the speakers today were excellent.”

“I thought the program was really interesting–especially the first part of the day. I really enjoyed hearing from Judge Corley and from Plaintiffs’ side firms. I also found the tips to be very helpful. It was a good overview of material.”

“This program is excellent for its target audience.”

“Thank you for your hard work!”

“I practice in federal court regularly and was hoping to get some practice tips to improve my representation and also to confirm or correct the lessons I have learned in practice – the program did exactly that.”

“It was a beautiful program and I learnt a lot. There was a lot of theory that I enjoyed.”

“It was a lot of great information.”

“I think the program was very informative and well put together. It was also nice to have everyone’s perspectives on various topics. I think the course was very thorough. I really appreciated more of the practical tips.”

“The content was presented well.”

“Very helpful tips and information.”

“Great topics, excellent speakers.”

“Very informative and engaging. Great speakers.”

“Very informative.”

“Excellent balance of substantive information, personal observations & idiosyncrasies of bench potentially relevant to practitioners.”

“The program was very informative and the speakers have a great rapport with each other.”

All speakers were good – especially the judge and the law clerk.”

“Very detailed. Thank you.”

“Very useful, practical information.”

“Very well done.”

“Very well done. Good speakers.”

“Great content. Really enjoyed Judge Stevenson.”

“I enjoyed the program, very informative.”

“Very informative. Good.”

“A very helpful presentation.”

“Very informative.”

“I found the program very helpful as an overview to litigation and many of the topics discussed have application in state court as well.”

“Excellent!”

“Great!”

“Great mix of judges, clerks, and practitioners.”

“Excellent training!”

“Appreciate that everything advertised is what I got.”

“Thank you. Another excellent program.”

“Very informative and practical advice; good for new lawyers.”

“Excellent training.”

“If this faculty is an example of Pincus, I’ll always attend. Great work!”

“Very helpful! Materials are nice.”

“Speakers were knowledgeable and relatable. Very informative.”

“Good insight. Good comments.”

“I found this a very helpful nuts and bolts for new attorneys.”

“The information was helpful and the materials (checklists in particular) will be useful here on out.”

“Great speakers.”

“Outlines were extremely effective.”

“Great program.”

“Best CLE course I have ever attended!”

“I enjoyed the individual tips, stories & examples – makes it easier to remember procedures.”

“Great program. Law clerks’ views are most valuable.”

“Appreciated the FRCP updates: this was the best part of the program.”

“I practice class action law, so I enjoyed hearing about the speaker’s experience.”

“All excellent speakers – both in content and delivery.”

“Very happy. Not many CLE’s specialize in federal law. I wish I had taken this course earlier!”

“Motions presentation was worth the entire price. Humor works! Anecdotes were great!”

“Great Job! An excellent course. Informative presentations!”

“Very good program – the law clerk perspective should be heard by all lawyers.”

“Great practical advice.”

“I liked how Chaya M. Mandelbaum provided a deposition strategies outline in addition to the slides.”

“I most appreciated comments from judges and law clerks of federal courts as to insights of inner workings.”

“Very good program.”

“Excellent.”

“I learned more about federal court civil procedure than any other class I have taken.”

“Good speakers.”

“Very good.”

“Liked the updates regarding the current situation.”

“Great program!”

“Very informative.”

Faculty

Hon. Fernando Olguin
District Court Judge
U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Judge Olguin began his legal career in 1989 as a judicial law clerk for a federal judge in the District of Arizona. In 1991, he was selected to be a member of the United States Attorney General’s Honors Program, where he worked in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. After leaving the Department of Justice in 1994, Judge Olguin joined the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (“MALDEF”) as the National Director of the Education Program. In 1995, Judge Olguin became a name partner in the Pasadena-based law firm, Traber, Voorhees & Olguin, a firm that litigated housing and employment cases.

Judge Olguin was appointed to serve as a United States Magistrate Judge in 2001. In December 2012, Judge Olguin was confirmed as a United States District Judge. He maintains his chambers in Los Angeles.

---

Hon. Karen Stevenson
Chief Magistrate Judge
U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Karen L. Stevenson was appointed a U.S Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California on August 10, 2015.   Prior to joining the Court, Judge Stevenson was Of Counsel in the  Litigation Practice Group of Buchalter Nemer, APLC in Los Angeles, where she specialized in complex commercial matters, including securities litigation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, and insurance coverage for policyholders.  Judge Stevenson was lead counsel in high‐stakes disputes for national and regional clients, including banks, institutional investors, and mortgage lenders. She frequently speaks on electronic discovery, the admissibility of electronically stored information, cybersecurity, and social media. She has been a featured presenter at the Pincus “Federal Court Boot Camp” CLE programs 2013 – 2024.

Judge Stevenson has been a member of the Editorial Board of the ABA’s Litigation News and Litigation Update since 2008 and served as Editor-in-Chief in 2014-15.   She currently serves on the L.A. County Bar Association Litigation Section Executive Committee.  She is a Trustee to the Rhodes Trust at Oxford University and the District Secretary for Rhodes Scholarship selection committee in Southern California.

Judge Stevenson earned her J.D. with distinction at Stanford Law School. While at Stanford Law, with her teammate, Ms. Stevenson won the Marian Rice Kirkwood Moot Court Award for Best Team of Advocates. She earned an M.A. in European History at Oxford University, England as a Rhodes Scholar and received her B.A. in History (Phi Beta Kappa) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill where she was a Morehead Scholar.

Judge Stevenson was selected a Southern California Super Lawyer Rising Star three times in 2005, 2007 and 2008 and nominated by the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles as one of the Top 100 Women Litigators in Los Angeles.  She was named by Savoy Magazine as one of the nation’s Most Influential Black Lawyers of 2015.

---

Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
Magistrate Judge
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore was appointed in February 2012. Since then, she has presided over a wide variety of consent cases involving contracts, commercial law, civil rights, employment, patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, securities, administrative and constitutional law, immigration, environmental, and personal injury. She also conducts settlement conferences and manages discovery, including in nationwide class actions and multi-district litigation. Judge Westmore currently serves on the court’s Personnel Committee, co-leads the court’s Convictions Alternatives Program (“CAP”), and presides over CAP Aftercare Court, which follows CAP graduates for the first year of their probation and as otherwise needed.

Judge Westmore’s legal career began as a law clerk with the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office, before obtaining her first attorney position at an Oakland-based boutique law firm specializing in plaintiffs’ civil rights litigation.

She joined the Oakland City Attorney’s Office in 1999 as a Deputy City Attorney. During her 13-year tenure with the City, she advised City agencies and served as both a trial attorney and a law and motion attorney, where she filed suit on behalf of the City and defended the City and its employees on a wide range of matters in federal and state trial and appellate courts, including civil rights, personal injury, inverse condemnation, labor and employment, and complex litigation. Judge Westmore has been publicly recognized by community organizations, the City of Oakland, and elected officials for her contributions and service to the City of Oakland and its residents.

Prior to taking the bench, Judge Westmore served as President-Elect of the Alameda County Bar Association (“ACBA”), and volunteered for the ACBA Volunteer Legal Services Corporation’s Pro Bono Program representing low-income individuals in family law cases. She also served as the President of the Earl Warren American Inn of Court in 2017. Judge Westmore has been a member of the Charles Houston Bar Association (“CHBA”) since 1998, and she received the CHBA Guardian of Justice Award in 2018. She also received the Judicial Excellence Award from Black Women Lawyers of Northern California in 2022.

She received her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley and her J.D. from the University of San Francisco, School of Law, all while working full-time and being a wife and mother of two young children. As a law student, Judge Westmore served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong.  In 2023, Judge Westmore became an adjunct professor at USF School of Law, where she teaches a judicial externship course. Previously, Judge Westmore taught Honors Evidence at the Golden Gate University School of Law.

---

Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte (Ret.)
Retired Chief Magistrate Judge
Neutral, JAMS – Local Solutions. Global Reach.TM

 Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte (Ret.) joined JAMS after more than two decades as a United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of California. Judge Laporte was the chief United States magistrate judge for the Northern District of California from 2013 to 2015. As a magistrate judge, she presided over numerous civil cases with the parties’ consent, with a robust docket that included patent, trademark, copyright, business, class actions, employment, insurance, environmental, antitrust and civil rights litigation.

Judge Laporte is known for helping to shape patent and intellectual property case law and for advancing the court’s e-discovery procedures. Her colleagues and the legal community consider her among the leading legal thinkers on e-discovery issues. For her efforts, she earned the Judicial Leadership Award from the Electronic Discovery Institute in 2015. She also launched the Northern District’s Women Attorneys Advocacy Project, which seeks to promote gender equality in the legal community. 

As a neutral at JAMS, Judge Laporte adds value to the ADR process with extensive experience conducting settlement conferences and resolving discovery disputes, as well as presiding over numerous cases from start to finish, including through summary judgment and/or trial. Those who have appeared before her have witnessed her settlement skills and fair, thorough and intelligent style. 

---

Hon. Suzanne H. Segal (Ret.)
Retired Magistrate Judge, CDCA
Neutral, Signature Resolution

After 18 years as a United States Magistrate Judge with the Central District of California, including four years as the Chief Magistrate Judge, Hon. Suzanne H. Segal (Ret.) joins Signature Resolution as a mediator, arbitrator and Special Master/Discovery Referee. During her tenure on the federal bench, Judge Segal presided over numerous trials, evidentiary hearings, motions and discovery conferences involving diverse subject matter. Judge Segal served as the settlement judge in hundreds of cases, settling business and insurance disputes, patent, trademark and copyright actions, and employment, civil rights, and tort cases. Judge Segal handled a wide range of motions and settlements arising out of class actions, particularly in the wage and hour context. 

Judge Segal has broad experience in securities litigation, including matters brought by private investors and the SEC. In addition, Judge Segal has extensive experience in matters involving the False Claims Act and related actions involving the healthcare industry. 

Judge Segal has served as a Special Master or Discovery Referee in cases involving the False Claims Act, mass tort and insurance claims, patent litigation, and product liability claims. 

Before her appointment to the bench, Judge Segal served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office for 12 years. As an AUSA, Judge Segal handled a variety of cases, including contract, employment, civil rights, Medicare reimbursement and tort claims. She also brought consumer and civil rights actions on behalf of the Department of Justice. From 1999 to 

2002, she served as the Chief of Civil Appeals for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Prior to serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Judge Segal was a civil litigator at Dewey, Ballantine and Adams, Duque and Hazeltine.

Judge Segal has also served as a lecturer in Law at UCLA School of Law and Loyola Law School. 

Judge Segal is known for her work ethic and persistent dedication to reach a positive result for the parties. 

---

Joseph Farris, Esq.
Partner
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

 Joe Farris is a seasoned trial attorney and trusted advisor to technology companies based in San Francisco who represents clients in a broad range of business and intellectual property disputes. He has significant experience in state and federal courts, private arbitration, and a variety of cross-border disputes.

His clients often face emerging legal issues at the intersections of law and technology, including trade secret, copyright, trademark, patent, and unfair competition litigation. He has recently represented a medical technology company in federal court litigation against an internationally-based competitor that sought to raid the client’s U.S. operational staff and intellectual property. Before that, he defended an international electronics manufacturer against parallel federal and state litigation asserting trade secret misappropriation and trademark infringement.

His work frequently involves complex forensic investigations of digital evidence in disputes and litigation involving trade secret theft, source code copying, hacking and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), subpoenas for Internet content and communications, online defamation and harassment, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), works-for-hire disputes, and use of web-crawling bots. Joe also has experience in a variety of business litigation matters such as breaches of commercial contracts, licensing and royalty disputes, founders’ disputes, violations of fiduciary duties, and false advertising. He regularly advises and counsels clients on issues related to employee mobility, including cases involving breaches of employment contracts, non-disclosure agreements, non-competition agreements, and non-solicitation agreements.

Before joining Arnold & Porter, Joe was an Assistant District Attorney for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office where he was lead trial counsel in 10 jury trials, nine of which resulted in a conviction.

He is a 2008 graduate of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law where he was a member of the Board of Advocates and served as an article editor on the Ecology Law Quarterly journal.

---

Randy S. Grossman, Esq.
Partner
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Randy Grossman is a partner in our Trial, White Collar and Investigations practice and leader of the San Diego office. With nearly three decades of experience in private practice and as a prosecutor, including his recent service as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, Randy focuses on government and internal investigations, white collar and civil litigation, and corporate compliance counseling.

Randy’s experience in private practice includes high-stakes matters for clients across multiple industries, including health care, technology, aerospace, global communications, defense contracting, retail and professional sports. He has represented clients in investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, SEC and state law enforcement agencies. Randy also has conducted internal investigations in the United States and internationally for companies and their boards of directors concerning alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, False Claims Act, and other federal and state laws. In addition, Randy has led complex litigation in federal and state court involving alleged fraud, antitrust claims, franchise disputes, securities laws allegations and class actions.

Immediately before joining Manatt, Randy served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California. As the chief federal law enforcement official for the district, Randy was responsible for prosecuting federal crimes committed throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties. During his tenure, the office successfully prosecuted several significant offenses, including espionage, cybercrime, transnational organized crime, cryptocurrency schemes, securities fraud, health care fraud, defense procurement fraud and public corruption. Randy also oversaw civil enforcement matters and litigation on behalf of the United States, and he worked with other U.S. Attorneys around the country on national policies regarding white collar crime and corporate compliance.

Randy started his career as a Deputy District Attorney for the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, where he tried more than 70 criminal cases to jury verdict, including high-profile murder and gang violence cases.

Randy is also a leader in the community. He is a Master with the Hon. J. Clifford Wallace Inn of Court, a former trustee for the California Western School of Law Board of Trustees, a former president of the San Diego Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and a former board member for Walden Family Services Adoption and Foster Care Agency.

---

Kate E. Lazarus, Esq.
Partner
Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP

Kate specializes in complex litigation, and has a wide range of experience in both state and federal court. She has handled cases in the areas of intellectual property, contract, fraud, securities, and criminal law.   

Kate has tried both civil and criminal cases, in court and in arbitration. Her trial experience includes a copyright case with a damages claim of over a billion dollars, an eight-week federal criminal trial involving corporate accounting, and a week-long confidential arbitration in which the opposing party took nothing and was responsible for her client’s attorney’s fees. Kate has experience in all phases of litigation, from the pleadings stage to depositions to examining witnesses at trial.  Kate focuses on digging into the challenges a client faces, and developing efficient and effective solutions with an eye towards her client’s business goals.

Kate has maintained an active pro bono practice, in particular in the area of immigration law.  Kate grew up in San Francisco and is active in her community. She serves as the President of the Planning Association for the Richmond, and is on the board of the Lowell High School Alumni Association.  

---

Marc R. Lewis, Esq.
Partner and Co-Founder
Lewis + Llewellyn LLP

Marc Lewis is an experienced civil trial lawyer and has consistently been ranked by SuperLawyers as one of the top 100 attorneys in California.  Marc has first chaired numerous civil jury trials and arbitrations to verdict, and has amassed countless favorable settlements for his clients along the way.

Most recently, Marc was lead counsel for a group of executives who were denied millions of dollars in equity from their former employer.  The dispute quickly escalated to litigation which included both a confidential arbitration as well as parallel proceedings in state court.  The litigation included contractual claims, trade secrets claims, statutory / securities claims, and unfair competition claims, with more than million at stake.  Opposing counsel was one of the world’s most aggressive litigation firms, and the principal opponent is renowned for his litigiousness and fearsome reputation.  Roughly one month before trial, the claimant team (led by Marc) forced a settlement than was more than ten times what had been previously offered.  It was a watershed victory for Marc’s clients and the firm.

Marc also recently represented a vehicle manufacturing company in a contested arbitration against an electric vehicle startup company.  Following years of litigation and a two-week arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded Marc’s client million in damages, and rejected counterclaims valued at over million.

Marc also specializes in representing sophisticated clients as third parties in some of the highest profile cases pending in the U.S.  For example, in the last three years alone, Marc has represented parties in the Wisk v. Archer litigation; In re Surescripts Antitrust Litigation; In re Zoom Securities Litigation; In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation; U.S. v. American Airlines, et al; and FTC v. Illumina, Inc.

Several members of the Fortune 100 routinely hire Marc to resolve a wide variety of complex, high-stakes business disputes.  Among other things, Marc has a nationwide practice prosecuting, defending, and advising employers and high-level executives in complex employee mobility litigation.  He has appeared in courts throughout the U.S. in cases concerning non-compete agreements and allegations of trade secret theft.  Illustrative of his experience, Marc has been hired multiple times by law firms seeking Marc to represent and defend them in contentious, bet-the-firm disputes.

Most of Marc’s clients turn to him time and time again.  For example, one Fortune 100 technology client has hired Marc to resolve over two hundred separate matters, and Marc has secured significant victories for this client across the board.  A separate Fortune 100 client has hired Marc to help onboard over one hundred new critical hires in the bio-pharmaceutical industry.  Another client recently explained to Benchmark Litigation, “I chose Lewis & Llewellyn largely because of Marc’s expertise and character.  He is a tremendous counselor, who I enjoyed working with and never hesitate to contact if I had any questions whatsoever.”

In addition to his commercial litigation practice, Marc is a passionate advocate for victims of sexual abuse.  He represents victims throughout the country and has obtained many multimillion dollar settlements and verdicts in doing so.  Most recently, Marc obtained a million settlement for one bay area abuse survivor, and a .5 million settlement for another survivor.  Marc is proud to continue his firm’s tradition of fighting for justice for survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

Marc attended the University of California, Los Angeles where he graduated summa cum laude and phi beta kappa.  Marc then moved to Washington, D.C., where he served as a speechwriter in the Clinton Administration.  Marc later returned to Los Angeles and attended UCLA School of Law, where he was the Senior Editor of the UCLA Law Review.

After law school, Marc worked in the San Francisco office of Latham & Watkins, an international litigation powerhouse.  Marc also clerked for the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker, the former Chief Judge of the Northern District of California.

Upon leaving Latham & Watkins, Marc served as a Deputy City Attorney on the Trial Team for the City and County of San Francisco.  As a trial deputy, Marc defended the City and County of San Francisco in state and federal court, specializing in civil rights, constitutional, personal injury, and complex civil cases.

---

Meghan Féronie Loisel, Esq.
Senior Litigation Counsel
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe LLP

Meghan Féronie Loisel joined the firm in 2016 because she wanted to represent employees who stand up for their rights.  Meghan helps employees subjected to workplace discrimination or retaliation to hold their employers accountable.  She also works to ensure that employers honor the contractual commitments they make to their employees and pay them the wages and benefits owed.  Meghan’s litigation practice includes both individual cases and class actions in court and arbitration. 

Meghan focused on employment law during law school, working as a law clerk representing low-income workers at Legal Aid at Work.  After completing a litigation fellowship with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project in New York City, she returned to the Bay Area and worked for Santa Clara County as a deputy county counsel.  This role provided Meghan with insight into public employee representation.  She was herself a public employee and union member.  She also defended the County and its employees in employment, civil rights, and tort cases.  Meghan relies on this balanced view of employment litigation to provide her clients with evenhanded assessments of their cases. 

Meghan graduated from New York University School of Law and is a member of the California Bar and New York Bar.

---

Chaya Mandelbaum, Esq.
Partner
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP

Chaya Mandelbaum is a Partner at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP where he represents employees in individual and class action litigation and negotiations across the spectrum of employment law. He has extensive experience in wage and hour, discrimination, retaliation, harassment and leave of absence matters.

Chaya also recently served as Chair of the California Fair Employment and Housing Council.  He was appointed and re-appointed to the position by former California Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and his appointment and re-appointment were confirmed by the California Senate.  The Council promulgates regulations related to employment and housing discrimination and holds hearings on civil rights issues confronting the state.

Before joining Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, Chaya was a Senior Litigation Counsel at Sanford Heisler.  At Sanford Heisler, he represented employees in class actions involving wage and hour, discrimination and other civil rights claims.

Previously, Chaya was a Trial Attorney in the Office of the Solicitor for the United States Department of Labor.  In that capacity, he successfully represented the Secretary of Labor in numerous significant enforcement actions, including a multi-million dollar wage and penalty recovery based on violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He obtained successful results in both jury and bench trials during his tenure. 

Prior to his service at the Department of Labor, Chaya worked in the Labor and Employment Practice Group at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, where he represented employers in matters involving wage and hour, employment discrimination and labor relations.

---

Agustin D. Orozco, Esq.
Partner
Crowell & Moring LLP

Given his background as a former federal prosecutor, clients trust Agustin Orozco to lead complex white collar cases and investigations, handle contentious and sophisticated pretrial litigation, and successfully prove highly difficult cases at trial. Agustin’s experience as a federal prosecutor and government contracts attorney leaves him uniquely situated to help clients where government contracts and white collar intersect.

Agustin represents clients in criminal and civil government investigations and enforcement actions. He also represents and counsels clients on matters involving federal, state, and local government contracts. Agustin has litigated civil False Claims Act matters and other government contracts issues, such as disputes, claims, and terminations, as well as suspension and debarment matters. He is also experienced in matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including conducting investigations abroad and counseling clients on compliance issues.

Prior to rejoining the firm as a partner, Agustin was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Public Corruption & Civil Rights Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. While serving in this role, Agustin represented the United States in criminal investigations, prosecutions, and/or appeals of public corruption, bribery (both domestic and abroad), conflicts of interest, honest services fraud, procurement fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax, and civil rights crimes. He worked on hundreds of criminal cases, served as lead counsel in federal trials, examined dozens of witnesses on direct and cross-examination, delivered opening and closing arguments, and briefed and argued multiple cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

During law school, Agustin was an extern for the Hon. Barry Russell at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California and interned at the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles. He also served as the co-chair of La Raza de Loyola and as chief justice of the Scott Moot Court Honors Board.

Agustin is active in the community and serves as a commissioner on the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission of the State Bar of California; on the steering committee of Just the Beginning, Los Angeles; and as a board member of For People of Color Inc. He is also a board member of the Federal Bar Association-Los Angeles and on the Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Privacy & Cybersecurity Section. Agustin previously served on Project LEAD, where he helped teach elementary school children about the criminal justice system, and as vice chair of the LACBA’s Diversity in the Profession Committee. Agustin was selected to the Pathfinder Program of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity in 2016.

---

Adam K. Shea, Esq.
Partner
Panish | Shea | Boyle | Ravipudi LLP

 Panish | Shea | Boyle | Ravipudi LLP founding partner Adam Shea is a nationally recognized trial lawyer with extensive experience and success representing individuals and families in catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, and across Southern California.

Mr. Shea has a proven track record of helping those who have been harmed by negligence, wrongful conduct, violations of safety rules, and defective products – including automotive and tire product defects. In this area,  Mr. Shea specializes in bus and truck collisions involving other vehicles and pedestrians, accidents resulting from tire failures, rollovers of 15 passenger vans, trucks and utility vehicles, as well as cases involving claims of roof crush, defective fuel systems, defective restraint systems, seat back failures, child safety seat defects, airbag deployment failures, van conversion defects, and vehicle crashworthiness. He has obtained some of the largest jury verdicts and settlements in California in these types of cases and was an integral part of the trial team in Lampe v. Continental Tire that resulted in a .6 million verdict, which is the largest jury verdict in history in a lawsuit involving a defective tire.

Mr. Shea also represents injured parties in cases involving commercial truck accidents, trash truck accidents, airplane accidents, helicopter crashes, train disasters, and governmental liability for dangerous condition of public property. He has achieved over 200 settlements and jury verdicts in excess of ,000,000 in these types of cases, including numerous record settlements and verdicts.

Mr. Shea is a member of the Los Angeles chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates (“ABOTA”), and has been selected by his peers for inclusion in, Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers,  Best Lawyers of America, National Trial Lawyers: The Top 100 Trial Lawyers, and Super Lawyers. He has been recognized for his legal ability and ethical standards by the prestigious Martindale-Hubbell peer review ratings with an A-V rating, the highest possible rating.

In 2011, Mr. Shea was a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) Trial Lawyer of the Year for his representation of three young boys who lost both their parents when their van rolled over after a tread separation in the rear tire in the case of Barber v. Mossy Ford (San Diego Superior Court). The jury found that the car dealership had performed a faulty tire repair that led to the tread separation, and reached a record verdict of ,465,864. Pre-trial settlements with other defendants resulted in a combined recovery for the family of ,763,000 – as well as an agreement by the dealership to improve their training of its technicians to improve consumer safety.

A frequent lecturer at a wide variety of legal education seminars, Mr. Shea travels throughout the country sharing his expertise with his professional peers. He has appeared on national news programs, including NBC News, and has authored numerous articles in legal publications on various topics.

Mr. Shea is a member of several professional organizations, including the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, the Board of Directors of the Attorneys Information Exchange Group, the Consumer Attorneys of California, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, and the American Association for Justice.

A 1990 graduate of UCLA, Mr. Shea earned his Juris Doctorate from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles in 1993. When on break from his legal practice, he enjoys spending time with his family and coaching his son in a variety of youth sports, as well as serving on the Board of several youth sports leagues, including the local football league, basketball league, and Little League.

---

Laurie E. Smith, Esq.
Career Law Clerk
U.S. District Court, Central District of California

Laurie Smith has served as a career law clerk for the Honorable John F. Walter, U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California for more than 15 years. Prior to that, Ms. Smith litigated at several law firms in Northern and Southern California. Ms. Smith served as Managing Editor for the Virginia Tax Review Law Journal and is a 1996 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law.

---

Jennie Wang VonCannon
Partner
Crowell & Moring LLP

Jennie Wang VonCannon is a partner in the Los Angeles office and is a member of the firm’s White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement and Privacy & Cybersecurity groups. She is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US). Jennie previously served for over 11 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and was appointed the Deputy Chief of the Cyber & Intellectual Property Crimes Section of the National Security Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Jennie now practices white-collar criminal and regulatory defense with a focus on data privacy and cybersecurity matters, and litigates a wide range of matters in state and federal court. In December 2021, she was part of the trial team that secured a full acquittal after three months of trial for a doctor charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California with 33 health care fraud-related felonies.

During her tenure as a federal prosecutor for the Central District of California, Jennie investigated and prosecuted computer intrusion, trade secret theft, cyberstalking and extortion, and copyright infringement cases, and supported a law enforcement squad dedicated to the investigation and disruption of national security threats posed by a particular nation-state. As a former member of the Violent and Organized Crime Section and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force of the Criminal Division, Jennie also investigated and prosecuted myriad offenses, including street gang racketeering, large-scale narcotics, child exploitation and human trafficking, bank and mail fraud, and identity theft.

Jennie is the chair and founding member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA) Privacy and Cybersecurity Section, and an executive committee and life member of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles. She has spoken at several industry programs on key topics such as: the California Privacy Rights Act, Ethical Duties of Technology Competence, and The Impact of the 2020 U.S. Cyberspace Solarium Commission Report.

---

Fees

Choose OnDemand Streaming or Recorded Packages in Download or DVD format

OnDemand Streaming:  $429
Your OnDemand access is good for up to one-year from the time of purchase.  Please be sure to select OnDemand Streaming to the right and check out.  OnDemand can be watched from any type of device.

Alternatively, you can order a Recorded Package in Download or DVD** formats as follows:

Video (with sound)* Recording & Materials Package (DVD or Download): $429
Audio Only* (for in your car, etc.) Recording & Materials Package – CD or Download:  $429
Order both the Video* and Audio Only* Packages for only $50 more – DVD or Download:  $479

** CD/DVD orders will be charged $8.50 shipping.

This program will be recorded live on April 30 and May2, 2024. Because we record our seminars live and they are edited, OnDemand Streaming and Recorded Packages are available approximately two to three weeks after the seminar is held.)

*The Video recording is a video of the webinar (with sound). The Audio Only recording are audio files only and are for those who wish to listen to it without watching a video (such as in the car or while walking).

Note: OnDemand Streaming can be watched from any device. However, all download packages must be downloaded to a computer first, before transferring them to another device due to downloading as zip files containing both the video/audio and a large folder with seminar materials contained in the download package.

 

 

 

CLE Credit

CA General:  This program is approved for 7.5 units of general CLE in California.

NY General: This course is approved, under New York’s CLE Approved Reciprocal Jurisdiction policy, for 7.5 CLE units. Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.