Witness Prep for Corporate Reps & More

Peter Hecht: So, we are live now, and I like to watch. So, you know what I love about doing these webinars. Aside from the fact that I love doing webinars with Colin Hite and Derek Mullen and Tera Edwards and Christine Viggiano right, I got that right. I wanna make sure that. And of course, Mark my pal from Magna, who I went to high school with, who back in the day when he had hair. He had flock of seagulls, hairstyle, and he also had green hair. He also opened up for kiss. That’s a whole other story we could talk about, probably not on this particular webinar. But what I love about doing these webinars, because I have such rock stars on this webinar. I love to watch the participation of our click up. And so like right out of the gate. We are already at like clocking in at 274 people.

There’s a lot of people that want to get CLE out there. And there’s a lot of people that want to learn about what you all have to say about this particular topic. As I kind of told you before, we would get on here. I want to do a little bit of a station identification message, if you will, from Magna legal services. So, for those of you that don’t know me, I’m Peter Hecht. That says it right there with my name. That’s my mini me, that’s me as well. That’s the little Peter Hecht, with the goofy looking face.

I am one of the co-founders of Magna legal services. Mark Calzaretta is the other co-founder, and there’s other co-founders as well. I head up the sales and the marketing, and I do a lot of the content development. And what you’re gonna see today. And I just like to give a little background on magnet. Because, as I’m looking at like we’ve got now 300 people. Colin is a solid 300 every time. So, every time, Colin, you’re a rock star, and so are you, Derek. 300 people.

I imagine there’s a few people that maybe never heard of Magna. So, you know, as the program sponsor, I just want to say for those of you that are not familiar with Magna. Magna Legal services is an end to end, litigation, support, and consulting company. We’re headquartered in Philadelphia with offices throughout the country. We cover every Zip code throughout the United States with all of our services. What are those services? You ask? Well, we provide services from discovery to trial, such as court reporting services, language services, medical record collection services, e-discovery, consulting services, social media surveillance, I mean some heavy duty, social media surveillance.

We recently acquired a company by the name of Bosco legal services. That’s Bosco BOSCO. They’re awesome, by the way, and they brought a whole new game to the table for us when it comes to social media surveillance. We are also in the traditional investigative services. So yeah, the gumshoe detective stuff, you know. We’re doing that like, I’m Magnum pi. Now at Magna legal services. I think it’s pretty cool. I could come up with something for that we’re Alm Award winning Visual Communications company. So, helping you tell your story to the judge and the jury in a visually compelling, persuasive way. We can help you with that. We’re a jury consulting company

you know. If you ever have any questions about jury research, probably talk to anybody on this webinar about that we do all things, mock trials, focus groups. We also recently acquired an amazing company called Cogent Edge, which is going to dovetail really nicely into this topic today. And Mark is going to be speaking from the Magna Perspective, which is a premier witness communication and Prep Company, which is what we’re talking about today. Can I get a witness to that? We are got? We’ve got witnesses all over. We’ve got 329 witnesses, Derek and Tera and Christine and Colin and Mark. So, I’m feeling super psyched. This is gonna be great. Are you guys ready to do some CLE and get rid of me?

Tera Edwards: We’re ready.

Derrick Mullen: We’re ready.

Peter Hecht: You really want me. You want me gone that badly. I get it. I get it. I get it.

Mark Calzaretta: Yeah, maybe the little guy can stick around and you can just.

Peter Hecht: Pretty good. It looks good. I will listen. I want to thank Colin, Mark, Derek, Christine, and Tera for taking the time to put together this important subject matter, subject, matter, topic, and for anybody that’s interested in learning more. Afterwards you can reach out to any of the folks on this webinar you can reach out to your local magnet sales rep. You can reach out to me. You can call me at 8, 6, 6, 2, 4, 6, 2, 2, 1. I couldn’t help myself. I had to do the toll-free plug 1 time, or you can go. 8, 6, 6, Magna 21. How about that? All right, Toodloo. Make them smart.

Tera Edwards: Thanks, Peter. Hi, everyone really excited to be here today to talk about corporate representative depositions

Tera Edwards: and what we can do to prepare our witnesses. We’ve got some industry powerhouses here with us, Christine. Why don’t you introduce yourself to the group? Let us know where you’re at. What’s your title, and we’ll move down the line and then get into it.

Christine Viggiano: Yeah. Hi, my name is Christine Viggiano. I am corporate counsel for the general liability, litigation for Caesars entertainment.

Tera Edwards: Colin?

Colin Hite: Good afternoon, everyone, Colin Hite. I am head of litigation for insurance at Markel and oversee all insurance litigation in the United States.

Mark Calzaretta: And I’m Mark Calzaretta, and I’m 1 of the co-founders here at Magna. I head up our consulting group, our jury consulting, graphic consulting and trial, consulting group.

Tera Edwards: Last, but not least, Derek.

Derrick Mullen: I am least. Derek Mullen, Seneca Insurance Company. I am a litigation manager and Vice President of Casualty Claims and been working at Seneca for 29 years. Actually, even though I look like I’m 9 years old, but 29 years total here. So, looking forward to a great panel with a lot of talent.

Tera Edwards: Thanks, Derek, I was gonna say, you look like you’re 29 years old.

Derrick Mullen: Oh, thank you!

Tera Edwards: All right, let’s pull up the PowerPoint so everyone’s got a visual.

As I said, we’re going to be talking about witness preparation for corporate representatives today, company obligations in producing the witness, and what we can do to equip witnesses with the tools to succeed. And we’re going to hear from our panel here, Colin, Derek, Mark, and Christine on their experiences, and, most importantly, what they expect from their outside counsel.

I have to always start when talking about this topic with this quote here, I think it is absolutely true. It’s cruel to subject anyone to cross-examination without preparation. The unrehearsed witness can deal a lethal blow to an otherwise winnable case.

Lawyers who fail to prepare witnesses for cross-examination most often refer to their clients as appellants, and I think that’s absolutely true. I think preparation is key. Colin, what do you think about that?

Colin Hite: Absolutely. I mean, this is the new battlefield in litigation today, we all know that you know about 2% of cases go to trial. So, cases are really being won and lost at depositions, and the corporate deposition is where the real rubber meets the road on that. So, I absolutely agree, and preparation is critical, hypercritical, I would say.

Tera Edwards: And one of the main common pitfalls we’re going to start with and talk about today is just that, Colin. So thanks for opening it up under preparing for deposition. Derek, Christine, Mark, can you guys share with us some of your experiences in terms of corporate representative deposition preps? And what you’ve seen outside counsel do that has been really helpful in preparing their witnesses versus things you’ve seen that you don’t ever want to see again.

Christine Viggiano: Yeah, I mean, I can definitely start not to give. You know. I think Peter did a great job plugging Magna. But we used Magna for basically a witness preparation boot camp, Tera. Obviously, you’re well aware you led it. But I think that was huge. We required that all of our 30-B-6 witnesses attend this boot camp just to get an idea of, you know, reptile theory tricks that plaintiffs, attorneys could use, and making our 30-B-6 witnesses like comfortable with the process, so that when they we did prepare for specific depositions, it wasn’t like coming out of the blue. They had a background to kind of rely on and felt more comfortable going into the preparation. And I think it’s been night and day from when we did that. You know I’m not having people say under oath that yeah, that probably was a hazard anymore, which you know is detrimental to you know, our cases.

Tera Edwards: Mark, what about you? I know you’ve done some of these corporate witness boot camps as well.

Mark Calzaretta: Yeah, I mean, I think— Look, I think the biggest the best thing to do is you can’t be too over— You can’t over prepare right? Well, I guess you can, to a certain extent, but really preparing. And we talk. You know we’ve talked about this being underprepared is what I’ve seen is the most problematic issues, you know, like they’re not. Witnesses are not prepared with enough time before the deposition, and also not enough time during the prep sessions. They’re not cross-examined things like that. Basically the way the way I put this is it doesn’t matter what 36 or not. But for 30-B- 6, especially because they’re corporate reps is practice. Make the practices really really hard, so that the game becomes really really easy.

And if I if there’s the problems that I’ve seen, is just from a lack of spending time with the witness and sort of I’ve seen them thrown to the wolves, and that takes a case that had very little risk or very little exposure, especially when it’s a 30-B-6. It’s and then just turns it into something that it never had to be.

Tera Edwards: So, Colin, turning to you when we talk about preparing a corporate representative for that position, what’s your thought process on how many prep sessions, and how they should be conducted.

Colin Hite: So, my view. And frankly, you know, I think Markel’s view for our corporate rep witnesses is we need about a minimum of 3 prep sessions, and we need at least 2 of them in person with the witness. So, we want the lawyer flying to wherever that witnesses, and meeting with the witness, you know, meet with them for a day. Usually, the 1st day kind of goes over some of the background. The documents, the themes of the case. If you have a little time, you might do some mock. The second prep is usually on zoom and that is mock. They are mocking that person for anywhere between 4 and 6 h throughout the day with the exhibits. The exhibits we assume will be used, or at least the hot docs, and the day before the deposition, or right before the deposition, is another day of mock, and we try to record it at least some of the session to let the witness see themselves and I want the lawyer with the witness.

So, the 2 sessions in person are critical. We also insist that our lawyers that are defending the witness are with the witness in person. We do not let the lawyer do it over. Zoom and defend a corporate rep by zoom. Bad things happen when your rep is by themselves in their bedroom or kitchen on zoom. Really bad things happen. So, we really want you with the witness, of course, at Markel, if it’s a corporate rep an associate, general counsel is also must attend all prep sessions and be at the deposition. So, you’ve really got 2 lawyers working in tandem with the witness. The final thing I would say that makes it a little easier is we try to use the same corporate reps over and over again. So, we’re not reinventing the wheel every time, I would say, like some of my witnesses now are on their 6th to 10^th corporate deposition since I started 7 years ago. It makes it so much easier.

You know, that you don’t have to spend in that 1st session going through the basics of a deposition, and actually, as they get better, then they can become kind of advocates if they’re comfortable enough, and you’re comfortable enough with them, and so you don’t have to tell them. Just say yes or no, and keep it short, because this may be your one and only chance to get your story out. So, if you have a really strong witness, you can actually use them to get the defense or the themes out on your side in more of an offensive way than a defensive deposition.

Tera Edwards: Okay? And all of that makes sense. And how do we prepare these corporate witnesses during these sessions? As you said, mock cross is huge. What about another common pitfall of over relying on scripts, over coaching memorization? Oh, looks like we have a polling question. Everyone take a quick break.

Do you prep witnesses prior to depositions? I hope everyone answers always. If you don’t, stay on this, CLE and take avid notes of what we’re talking about here today, will it let me vote? I don’t think it will.

Colin Hite: Panelists can’t vote.

Tera Edwards: The next common pitfall so overall over relying on scripts, over coaching memorization. Derek, have you seen this pitfall? When you’ve been a part of corporate rep deposition, preparation, and how that’s negatively affected. A case or the deposition.

Derrick Mullen: Well again, when you’re selecting a corporate rep, it’s got to be someone that understands what the deposition is going to be about. It’s more going to be about company protocol company procedure. For instance, if you’re basing this, if this case is based on a denial of a claim, you’re really not. The corporate rep is not supposed to be the one that was involved in the hailing of that particular case. So, you want to make sure you separate the 2. There’s fact witnesses. Then you have your 30-B-6 witnesses, 30-B-6 Witness.

I like what Colin said is supposed to be someone you want the same kind of the same person doing it. You don’t want to start picking this person that person, because then you have no real consistency. Also 30-B-6. Witness. What you have to understand is that the other side is trying to basically uncover inconsistencies, and as far as how the claim handling process is for that particular carrier. So I like what Colin and the rest said prep is very important. I like 3 prep sessions, and I like one that’s recorded, because now that person can go back and listen to them, and not only listen to the words that they’re saying and how they’re answering the questions, but also the body language, because honestly, it’s like some people are great at studying, but when they go to take the test they’re not good at taking tests. So, you know, it’s practice practice practice, as Allen Iverson used to say, when you play for the sixers I’ve had sessions.

Look, I’ve had good prep sessions. I’ve had some bad ones, I think I alluded to. I had one bad one where I thought it was going to be good, but the attorney did a poor job. Prepping me did not cover something, and it went from a 2 h dep to like a 12 h dep, because they found they found basically a black hole, and I went down that rabbit hole, and it was just poor prep. So, I don’t like this day before prep. I like it with a 2-week span, and then last day the day before is supposed to be like more of like a brush up. So that’s and you really have to have really good attorneys. And the one thing that you really need which I am, I really import all counsel. Don’t have a counsel that’s going to sit there and sugarcoat you hold your hand, rub your back and say how great you are. I want somebody who’s going to mock me and take me to the limit. Get me upset. See if I get upset someone who can play the other side. So, because originally what I said before the prep session is supposed to be like a colonoscopy prep. It’s supposed to be the worst, and the actual procedure. The actual dep should be very, very easy.

Tera Edwards: Well and moving off of what you said goes to our next common pitfall, really, which is under preparing for cross-examination. When you had that experience that you told us about where you were underprepared would mock Cross have been a game changer for you in the deposition.

Derrick Mullen: It would have been a definite game changer, because obviously, I’m not gonna name the firm. But you know, they were relieved of their duties after my after my prep session. But I just wasn’t really prepped properly. And if I did have in dealing with, you know, Magna quite a few years here, if I would have had a one of those sessions there, I think that I would have been well better off in in my prep session would have probably been under 2 h.

Tera Edwards: Mark from your experience in the corporate representative boot camps. What can outside counsel do during their cross examination to ensure that their corporate reps are as fully prepared as possible.

Mark Calzaretta: Yeah, I think one thing is bringing in someone else to cross-examine them, I think, is, you know, for example, Tera, if you were work if Derek was a corporate rep, and you’ve been representing Derek right and his company, and for years, or whatever period of time, right? And there is a rapport there, and it’s very hard to kind of flip around. Now you’re the bad Tera, right like you know what I mean. So, it’s easier to what I found psychologically and also in preparing for cross-examination is to bring somebody in and that somebody should potentially, since you know your adversary, mirror the style, and possibly what? The witness? Again, you’re preparing the cross examination. That’s going to mirror what they’re, you know. Are they aggressive? Are they super nice? Are they going to like, lull you into feeling like you’re their buddy? Or are they going to be a pit bull? That to Derek’s point that they’re going to push your buttons to try to get you angry on camera you know.

So, I think one thing is to bring someone else in from like a partner colleague, something like that. To cross, examine the witness. The the other part is to really prepare a rigorous cross, and that takes work, you know, on the lawyer’s part. It’s not just like off the cuff. It should be a really systematic attempt at dismantling the witness and you know, I think those are the kind of the 2 big, big, broad brushstrokes that I think are the most important. There are others, of course, and I’m sure others on the panel have other perspectives on that.

Tera Edwards: Colin, what do you expect of your outside counsel when they’re preparing this mock cross of your corporate representatives? Do you expect them to go down the reptile, tactic and mirror, opposing counsel and make it as real as possible to them, to the deposition itself.

Colin Hite: I do, I think, before day one so of the 1st prep session, before we even all get together on day one, I expect my counsel to have already sent the witness a binder of the key documents. The witness is supposed to have read them and be familiar with them.

So again, we’re not spending time kind of just, you know. You know, a lawyer isn’t prepared for the depot prep. If they show up in their entire prep is just let’s walk through the documents and we walk. We here’s document one. This was an email. Let’s talk about it. And you’re talking about it. And then here’s document 2, and you know, on, on. Well, we didn’t get through them all. So, the second prep session we still have to do more, and then on the 3rd we’re kind of getting our, you know, what’s the theme about. I mean, on day one I want the documents already in the witness’s hand. I want a binder.

We should have already kind of agreed upon what I call 3 themes. The witness needs 3 themes that they can kind of fall back on to almost any question and answer it. So, you know, if the question is, you know something about it’s a personal injury case, and it’s about, you know, a trucking accident. You know, in our industry we do this as a matter of course, for you know our drivers, and it’s kind of something that they ought to be able to fall back on. If they don’t, they get a question they’re not sure about.

And so, when you’re on that day too, the lawyer really should have an outline and actually be doing actual cross exam and testing out, you know, is the is the witness getting comfortable with the themes, the questions, the documents. Can they pivot, I mean, if you’re still just thumbing through documents, the witness is not going to be ready. And you know, I think that is how we used to prep witnesses when I 1st came out of law school 30 years ago. You kind of got together the day before you walk through the documents, and the next day you met for an hour over coffee before the depot, and off you went. But now they’re all being videotaped.

You know, they’re able to be clipped and used Magna, or any you know, trial consultants clipping them. They’re looking for the gotcha question. So, you really have to get these witnesses well prepared on how not to give sound bite answers that will come back to haunt them. So yes, I think the lawyer is expected to have done a lot of homework before he or she shows up to any of the prep sessions, and if they show up and they’re not it, you know. I feel like we’re wasting time, and you know it won’t surprise anybody that knows me.

If I’m at the session, I start taking over the session, and we start moving ahead quickly, because it’s just, you know, it’s not fair to the witness, as you said in your quote at the beginning, you know, to send them in unprepared. And they are nervous. They know they’re speaking for the company they know this is gonna be recorded and or indoor transcribed, or both, and they want to do a great job, and they don’t want to screw it up, and they want to feel like they’re well prepared. And so that just takes a lot more work than it ever used to.

I mean, I think everybody on this call would agree. We are in an unprecedented litigation environment today, and that requires us to do more than we’ve ever done before to get ahead of the curve.

Tera Edwards: Absolutely. I couldn’t agree with you more. And I call that home base for my witness. I have things that they can pivot to and come back to, and it’s home base. And I had to throw that out there, too, in honor of October baseball, because we all love it, and although we won’t talk about the guardians or the—

Christine Viggiano: At least right.

Tera Edwards: Right, another common pitfall, preparing all witnesses the same, and not getting to know your witness. I also think that is huge when you don’t meet at least 3 times. It’s difficult to get comfortable with your witness and get to know your witness and have them feel confident during the deposition.

Mark, Christine, what’s your thoughts on preparing all witnesses the same, or having a unique outline case specific to deal with those issues?

Christine Viggiano: Yeah. So, I mean for us. So, we kind of like, Derek, we have, or Colin. I don’t remember who said it, but we have specific 36 witnesses per region. You know, so that we’re not getting different testimony over and over again. We also have a, I mean, for the size of the company. We have a fairly small attorney panel. So it’s nice in that our attorneys get to know the 30-B-6 for that specific region really well, and I want everyone to be comfortable together. And I agree preparing all witnesses the same as you know, there are some 30-B-6 witnesses that we have that are really good at looking at documents on computers, and, you know, marking them up.

But there are others that are more old school which, like me, I like paper documents. I like to be able to write things down. I like to be able to see it, and just understanding, you know, kind of some of those witnesses weaknesses. What are their strengths and playing on that? And I think that really just comes from meeting them in person over and over again, and really getting to know them. And I think you know our structure is unique in that.

You know, Tera, you know our Vegas, 30-B-6 is really well, because you’ve met with them and spoken to them so many times, and we’re the same across the country. So, I think that is a really good structure that we have to make everyone kind of comfortable in the process. And the 1st time they’re not meeting that attorney is the 1st time. They’re also giving a deposition.

Tera Edwards: Mark, how important is it to prepare your corporate representative differently than just a fact? Witness.

Mark Calzaretta: Well, I think well, I think it’s, I think the methodology generally can be the same, right like what you’re talking, what everyone’s been talking about. You know, so pivot points. We talked about that pivot points to what? To themes and home bases. Right? How you prepare witnesses to understand what their role, what their job is right as a witness, so to speak, right like their job isn’t to win the case a 30-B-6 or a fact witness. That’s not your job, right? So, there’s some commonalities that you know are going to be the same, but obviously a fact witness and a corporate rep.

There starts to become that difference. Right? Tera, you have a pretty good story about that. But, for example, like, what are the areas that they’re going to be deposed about, you know, and that differs right? And so, like a fact, witness that’s dealing with maybe the facts of an accident opposed to a corporate rep that is going to testify. And maybe there’s going to be multiple depositions in this litigation, right serial litigation for the company, and they’re going to be talking about policies and procedures, and this stuff’s going to come up again and again and again. So, in that sense, you know, you can’t prepare a 30-B-6 in the exact same way to testify.

And also, because they’re not, they’re not supposed to answer questions related fact-based questions. Right? They’re there for as a corporate representative, so those are the differences. But I think methodology wise. They are substantially similar, you know, like the role of a deponent in a deposition is to be. It’s a listening exercise at the end of the day. It’s a listening exercise that, you know you have to be a very, very good listener, and some people are not that great at that, and that requires more prep. And whether they’re 30-B-6 or a fact. Witness right? So, but—

Tera Edwards: You brought up a really great point, mark that. I want to pivot to Colin and have you touch on before even a prep session for a 30-B-6 representative.

How crucial I know it’s crucial in my practice to take a look at that notice. Take a look at the topics that are being designated, and really meet and confer with the other side, and try to narrow things down and be as aggressive as possible before the deposition and narrowing those topics. What’s your experience there? And what do you expect about that council prior to the prep sessions.

Colin Hite: Well, even before that, Tera, nobody can depose one of our corporate reps unless there’s a protective order already entered into the case, so that we can put the deposition transcript under a protective order. And then we will put the entire transcript under a protective order, and then, once we get the Transcript, we will lift the protective order on pieces. We don’t feel the need to be designated, you know, under the order, but we do not want these depositions floating around the policyholder bar and the plaintiff’s bar and such. So, we you know we have a lot of business proprietary information and we don’t you know, a lot of times they’re talking about underwriting and pricing, and we’re not going to let that out. So, we put every deposition starts with a protective order in the case.

Then, when we get the notice. Like most people, the notices are wildly overbroad. The claim file, you know, the underwriting file, the accident, I mean, that’s crazy, I mean, that’s just a setup and a recipe for disaster to let a witness go in, because then every time the lawyer said. Objection says that’s outside the scope. You know what the response is no, it’s not this, and they somehow weave it into one of these broad topics and whatnot.

So, we do not like to go into a deposition without robust meet and confer, to really have the topics nailed down. What are we going to be deposed about. And what are the topics? So, we can structure the prep and focus on the correct documents and exhibits to be prepared for. So, I tell our lawyers. You know, I need, or Markel needs a minimum of 4 weeks before a corporate rep can be deposed. One because it takes, as Derek said, kind of 2 and a half weeks for the prep session, so they’re staggered and the witness gets some breathing room between them. But usually you’re going to spend a week or 2 on the meet and confers to nail down the topics and figure out if you’re going to have a problem with them.

So, you know, I usually like those memorialized in letters, and you know, kind of here’s what we’ve agreed to. So those topics really, no witness should come into the deposition without knowing what the playing field is. They’re gonna be on. It’s again. It’s not fair to them, and it sets them up. I mean, you’re gonna get questions. They’re not going to be prepared for, because the deposing lawyer is going to claim anything and everything falls within the 32 topics they’ve listed. And the topics, you know, are wildly overbroad. And then they get more focused. And you’ve got everything in between. So, it basically becomes anything in the incident is fair game, and anything at the company is fair game.

So takes a lot of work. I mean, you, just you, really, but it pays dividends in the end. If you spend the time to do it and do it correctly, and don’t give in.

Tera Edwards: How important you know we know the company obligations for producing a witness, which is, which is the slide here. We know that you have to produce witnesses. They’re going to be answering on behalf of the corporation representing collective knowledge of the corporation. How important is it to you all that those things are explained to the corporate representative during the prep.

Colin Hite: So that’s why I use the same ones over and over again. So, they know their role. They have volunteered to do it. It’s not in their job description, but they’ve agreed to do it.

So, you know, I’m not having to kind of, you know. Force somebody and say you’ve got to do it. Oftentimes they are not the person that was involved in the incident or the claim files, so they have some breathing room. Not to be a fact witness at the same time, or get converted into one back and forth.

You know I think my witnesses pretty much know why they’re there. They understand it, and that just comes out as the natural part of the kind of the initial prep. Session, and I can have a conversation with them, even before the lawyers have to get involved to kind of set that if there’s an issue with it or a concern. But I strongly encourage people to try to get a little stable of witnesses that you can go back to. It sounds like Christine has that at her place, Derek, you may, but I that has paid huge dividends, having the same people, you know, I can go to over and over again, and I have enough that I rotate it. I’m not putting up the same person, and you know, killing them because they can’t do their day job, but it really makes all the process go a heck of a lot smoother.

Tera Edwards: So that’s something we’ve heard from all of you that you have a small group of people that you designate to handle these corporate representative depositions.

Opening it up to the whole panel, have you ever had a situation where your outside counsel looks at the notice and says, hey, wait a minute. I know you have a go to person for these types of topics, but I really think you know, somebody else is going to be the witness for this case and should handle that. And how have you dealt with that? If you’ve ever experienced that.

Christine Viggiano: Yeah. So, I actually make that designation. It’s not always outside counsel. But I ask for the topics, you know, and a lot of times my 36, who is generally the risk manager or the regional risk manager, if it’s a large region. If they’re not able to do it, and I think there’s 1 or 2 topics that would be more beneficial from, you know, the head of facilities, or the head of security, or something like that.

There are people that I have for those specific topics. I mean, that’s not that often right? But I don’t ask. I would rather that that individual, like head of security, that knows those 2 or 3 topics off the top of their head without much learning to then, rather than having to teach someone else. So, I’m fine with designating multiple 30-B-6, for specific topics. In cases, if a case warrants that.

Tera Edwards: Colin, you were shaking your head. No, Derek, I think I saw you too. What’s your thoughts on this?

Derrick Mullen: Oh, my, my thought! Look, my company! We designate one individual. He’s actually on a call now. But obviously you, it really has to be someone that has knowledge of the company’s policies and procedures. What I really you know, what I really dislike is that you know. Sometimes you do have attorneys that do not prep well, and then what happens is the 30-6-B witness can start getting like caught up in a rabbit’s hole, because now they’re throwing out fat questions about the case.

And basically, all that is a setup, because eventually they’re going to depose the person handling the case. So obviously, if there is a difference of opinion between the person, the fact witness and the 30-B-6 witness, the plaintiffs has already won their case already, because now there’s going to be inconsistencies in the testimony.

So, that’s why it’s very important to make sure that the parameters are set when witnesses are being requested the 30-B-6 witnesses there to discuss policy procedures. For instance, for example, you know, Rod Patterson, how many claims have you have? Seneca denied in the last 2020 years. How many claims have you paid of this? The same type of case? And if there’s inconsistencies?

Well, yeah, we paid some claims because we wanted to save on cost. That’s going to be a problem. Because now they’re going to say, well, you paid these claims. Why didn’t you pay the other claims? And the fact witnesses should not be answering questions regarding policies and procedures because that might not be their area. They’re there to basically talk about the facts of the case. If you have them start looking at policies and looking at the company guidelines and things like that it’s just gonna go out of whack. So that’s I like one witness.

And look, you can have a sizable company where you may need more than 1 30-B-6 witness. But for the most part, if a company, if a carrier is right in good business, you’re not going to be sued too many times. So, we’re not. We’re not really concerned about, you know, having to have more than 1 30-B-6 witness.

Tera Edwards: That’s good. Colin, what’s your take?

Colin Hite: It’s our decision like Christine says. I picked the corporate rep. You know we don’t let claims people testify on underwriting. We don’t let underwriting testify on claims. So, I you know, there’s always a potential. I have to have 2 reps in a case depending on what the issues are and how they’re gonna tee it up. But and you know, we have been very successful in trying to use corporate reps and telling the opposing counsel that you know it’s so much better to do a corporate rep. You don’t need the fact witnesses, and I would say more than 50% of the time. They never even take the fact. Witness claims handler, and such they are.

They don’t want to spend any more money than they have to either at times, and they will go with the corporate rep thinking, oh, I combined the company now, you know. Sometimes they don’t love the corporate rep when they’re done, because the person’s a good rep and testifies Well but then you’ve got kind of an argument that it’s redundant and cumulative, and they shouldn’t have both, and you start to put up a little barrier there. But it cannot be in my view outside counsel’s decision. Looking at a file and saying well, so and so, you know, is at the scene, and I think he’ll make a better witness.

That’s, you know. There’s a bigger picture here we’re looking to. And it’s not always just this case. Right? I mean, if these depositions are going to get out and about, we’re looking for consistency across multiple cases and across the country. So it’s not just always about this case. It’s the bigger picture we’re having to also manage, which is why in-house counselors so involved.

Tera Edwards: And that makes that makes perfect sense. And we know, you know, based on what we’ve talked about today, that the corporate representative doesn’t need to be the witness that’s most knowledgeable in the company. Right? You can teach the witness the information that they need to know, and they can go talk with other folks inside the corporation in order to get that knowledge.

When you have a designated corporate 30-B-6. Do you expect outside counsel to manage and direct the witness to who they need to go to for certain information? Or is that something that, since you have these witnesses already identified that you guys handle inside yourselves.

Derrick Mullen: Ourselves—

Colin Hite: Go ahead!

Derrick Mullen: Sorry. No, we make that decision.

As far as you know. But you know company management here at Seneca, as far as who the 30-B-6 witnesses. We do not let counsel dictate, or advise us who we should be using, because obviously, they’re not in a position to make those decisions unless there’s some circumstance to where they feel maybe someone else would be better suited to be that witness that 30-B-6 witness. But other than that, you know, we make that decision. We do not leave it up to counsel to make the decision, and if they disagree with our position. Then they have to come up with a very good reason as to why.

Colin Hite: I well, I agree with that, and you know we don’t let our corporate reps go and do their own fact investigation to prepare for the deposition. So we tell them who to talk to if we need, if they need to. I’m on that call and councils on that call.

Usually, at least, I’m on that call. We don’t let them just go review documents, so we feed them the documents in the binder before the deposition. If, if during a prep session, you know, some witness says, oh, and this has happened to me.

Oh, well, you don’t have such and such that’s actually in a different file in the computer system which I wouldn’t know about or something. Then. Okay, let me get it, and then we’ll look at it and decide if you should have it, because once they go start doing that on their own, it’s potentially discoverable. And what I really don’t want is the witness. And some person they go talk to, to get way off kilter and into areas that they shouldn’t get into. And then the person they talk to now becomes a key witness and is going to get deposed. So it’s kept very tight and very structured throughout the entire process.

I mean, we are hand holding the corporate rep from start to finish, and I know, and I’m sure everybody else’s that’s using the same kind of stable of people. They know that they’re not, they would never go kind of conduct, their own fact-finding investigation to prepare without permission, because they now know where that lands them and lands the people they talk to. So, you know, we’re very careful. We’re very methodical about the whole process to keep this whole thing as tight as possible.

Look if a witness is not prepared for a question or a line of questioning and the witness has to say, you know, a lot of times we’re saying that wasn’t a topic I didn’t prepare for, because I was told that wasn’t going to be a topic that you would withdraw on that, or we’d agreed, whatever.

If we can’t answer them, we have to bring the witness back. I’ll pay for that, because now I know what the questions are, and we can get prepared for it. So I you know, if that’s if we, you know, supposedly didn’t prepare for it, then it’s not the best of all worlds. But heck. If I get a do over, I’ll take a do over, you know, and get the witness ready on that line of questioning. And now I kind of know what they’re doing. It’s that cost is pretty de minimis to still get a good deposition.

Tera Edwards: Absolutely.

Mark Calzaretta: And with that that actually brings to mind a case that I had it kind of what we’re talking about, where they making sure that you have the right witness like you. Like. Everyone’s talking about that. You have designees that you know who they are. They’re the right witness for the right questions, so on and so forth, for the right topics and a case, Tera, that that I had, that I remember it was during a mock trial, and they, the mock jurors, just laughed out. Loud was they brought in the global head of secure of safety.

There was an accident in a restaurant that involved the death of a child really bad case, and the plaintiff attorney asked a question. You know, did you think that? Do you think that the condition in the restaurant that day was unreasonably dangerous and unsafe, which is crux to kind of like what the case was about, and he says, No, I believe it was safe. No, the problem with that was that there were 36 other witnesses that testified from the organization that it was unsafe and so on video.

Now you have. He’s like, you’re the 1st person to testify to that from your organization. You realize there’s been, I think it was 36 or 38 other people have testified. So, like to Derek’s point about like they’re going to be asked questions potentially down the line, or how they’re going to piecemeal all this together, I mean sometimes, you know, that was the wrong person. There was no reason for that corporate rep to be that he was way too high up in the chain, too removed.

Wasn’t available for prep. It wasn’t the lawyer’s fault necessarily, but showed up for the deposition, said, I’m just going to go in there. And they it was kind of absurd, I think, but it just proves out the point, and that case turned into. You can just imagine what a mess that turned into.

Tera Edwards: Sounds like it, and that leads into where we were going to next. You know easy ways that a witness loses credibility, and it sounds like, you know, you just highlighted one of those ways that that happens. And you know, we know.

Mark Calzaretta: That one was that.

Tera Edwards: That’s why.

Derrick Mullen: Yep.

Tera Edwards: Arrogance, anger, anxiety, defensiveness, all of those things. And so, as outside counsel, we need to prepare witnesses and make sure that they don’t go down these pathways and mark what sort of ideas and recommendations have you given outside counsel to work with witnesses, to make sure that they don’t fall into these pitfalls and lose credibility during a corporate representative deposition.

Mark Calzaretta: Yeah. So, I think anxiety is the one that I would kind of start with, because I think, and maybe for people who have been deposed, like the way we’re talking about here you have corporate reps that are deposed more regularly, that are kind of used to being in that position. But it takes a special kind of person to be deposed, especially a person to be deposed like a lot right like.

Tera Edwards: Repeatedly.

Mark Calzaretta: Repeatedly, and I don’t think that there are any witnesses, that there isn’t some amount of anxiety before a deposition, and so anxiety plays in, I think, into all of these. It’s kind of like that’s the precursor to anger, the precursor to defensiveness, and in some instances the you know, the precursor to arrogance. You know these, I think the other 3 come out of anxiety. Right?

The more anxious you are, the more uncomfortable you are like the fight or flight reflex, right? Like those types of things. Right? So how do you react when you’re anxious? Well, some people turtle up. Some people go on the offensive right? Like there’s people do things, and some people do all the above, and they’re unpredictable in how they’re going to do that.

So, I think if you can address the anxiety first, I think that then you can work on the rest like Derek was talking about, you know, getting angry if you’re well prepared, and you know what the game is. Then you know how to play the game better. And so, you’re not going to get angry. You’re going to get over on the you’re in control, and depositions are control. They’re all about who has control.

In my opinion, they’re a listening exercise, and then they’re about who has control, and the witness at the end of the day has control and but they have to be empowered and be prepared in a way that they’re comfortable. And it’s not a memorization exercise, right? Like you touched on that earlier. I don’t care who you are with the best memory that is a recipe for disaster. You’re teaching. You’re by preparing. You’re teaching them techniques to avoid these things. Now, if taking that off the table for a second.

Getting angry at the appropriate time can be useful in a deposition depending upon the type of question you’re asked like, for example, when plaintiffs come out, Tera, I’m sure you’ve seen this. They come out, and they say you know some come out like lambs, some come out like lions and say, I want you to sit here and tell my client why you’re not responsible for murdering her husband.

I’ve seen that in a deposition literally.

Tera Edwards: Think I’d let that fly for my witness.

Mark Calzaretta: No.

Tera Edwards: Your thought. I always tell my witnesses that in my especially my corporate reps if anyone is going to get upset and lose their cool. It’s going to be me, because opposing counsel is going to treat you with nothing but respect. And that question, right? There is not respectful at all. But I always tell them I’ll be the one to handle that. If anyone’s gonna lose their cool, or engage in a back and forth with council, it will always be me as your counsel, defending the deposition. Never you!

Mark Calzaretta: Yeah. And so, it’s not appropriate. But if that creates anxiety and gets them back on their heels, then they accomplish their goal. They don’t care about whether you’re going to answer it or right. So, the point is now the witness is like, oh, now turtled up right? And so those types of things. So, if that’s going to happen, it’s a point is preparing them for that. Or would they get angry and say, like, that’s not okay to speak to me like that.

You know that type of thing. So, I’m not. I’m not advocating for doing that. But I’m just saying there are times where anger, maybe anger, and I don’t mean anger like crazy. I just mean, like, you know, sternness is appropriate when you’re being backed into a corner by someone who’s being totally obnoxious. And that’s okay at times.

But, generally speaking, these things are not where you want to be. You want to be in your happy place in your zone. Stay in your lane, and you want to pivot, and what happens is to Derek’s point, and then I’ll just. I’ll shut up. But is that to Derek’s point before you, do you? When the lawyer learns that they can’t get there with you, they get upset, they get angry, they get arrogant, and then they start to move on. So, the witness it’s all about that control and getting over that hurdle. When the lawyer knows that you’re not going to play that game, and you’re too. You’re too good for it. Then, you know, usually things go better for the witness, too, and it goes quicker. So.

Derrick Mullen: That’s true. Mark, because, like I said before, the witness controls that deposition, right? And what I expect my lawyers to do because plaintiff lawyers do it. They know everything about that witness before that witness gets on the stand. We need to know that as well. So, defense counsel, or whoever’s prepping us coverage counsel should be giving us some sense of what type of attorney is going to be crossing us.

Whether it’s 1 of these angry, screaming people, or you can get those ones that the soft voice that’ll lull you into just giving them everything they want. You get those like arrogance. Arrogance is somebody that’s going to come there that thinks they know everything. I don’t need any prep. I’m just going to come there and answer all the questions, and they start running away with it and giving away the store at the deposition, because they can’t keep their mouths just they like hearing their own voice, you know. So, it’s a number of different things.

I always tell people when you’re getting deposed, listen to the question, let your attorney have a chance to object to the question if they need to, and just stick to the script. You stick to the script. You’re fine because their job is to try to throw you off. That’s what they do.

And they and they’ll ask the same question in 5 different terminologies and 5 different ways to get you to slip up, but the key is, I always tell people take a couple of aspirins before the deposition, because you’re going to get a headache and just be prepared. Answer the questions, stick to the script, and you have to have kind of be kind of stoic about it. Just say you know what. Let them yell, scream, or do whatever they want. Just stick to the facts, and you’ll be fine.

Tera Edwards: Well, an interesting point, too, that I think Mark brought up that I heard a little bit. You know. At what point in time do you prepare your witness to not get angry but stand their ground when they’re responding to opposing counsel. And I think that’s 1 of the most important things that you need to prepare your witness, for. They cannot back down. This is their deposition, and this is their answer, and nobody knows the subject matter better than them. And so really standing your ground? And have you seen, has anyone seen instances where the witnesses are standing their ground with great prep. And it’s gone, really? Well, or it’s backfired in Mark’s situation.

Derrick Mullen: I had one dep where I what I did it I did a dep and the attorney opposing attorney basically, said, you know. He started asking questions. It was supposed to be a 4 h dep. It lasted about an hour and 10 min, because he just couldn’t get anything out of me. I was prepared, very well prepared, consistent with my answers, and like I said, you don’t, you don’t back down. You don’t. You don’t show a sign of weakness, you know. You stick to the facts.

And the attorney said, You know what? Guess what? We can end this deposition early. I’m not getting anything out of this witness that I’m looking for. So, let’s call somebody else, you know. So, you just like I said, you stick to the script, know, know the facts of the case? I mean not fax the case, but just know, know the questions that’s going to be answered.

The key is understanding the question. And that’s 1 of the problems I see with some witnesses where they don’t understand the question. So, they’re giving incorrect answers which they shouldn’t be rather than just saying, you know, what can you rephrase that question again? Can you answer? Can you ask that question in another way of not understanding. So, because, remember, the witness controls that deposition, not the plaintiff, attorney, not defense attorney’s coverage counsel. It’s the witness.

Tera Edwards: You know what.

Colin Hite: I think if the I do think if the deposing lawyer is being obnoxious, you know, asking the same question, kind of, you know, trying to infer with this incredulous tone, that you know the witness is either unprepared or lying, or whatever you know, I do expect the defending counsel to at some point, step in and object, and try to nudge the deposing lawyer along. And at some point, you know, I do think our witnesses have been very good about saying you know I can’t answer it any other way. You’ve asked me the question based on my preparation and whatnot? Here is Markel’s answer to that question, and sometimes our witnesses have been very good about flipping that, you know it’s the premise that the posing lawyer is asking and basing the question on. That’s wrong, so I can’t answer it the way you want, because your premise is improper. So.

But you know, I think you know, if the lawyer on the other side is being, you know, hyper, aggressive. I mean, I agree with you, Tera. No shouting, not gonna happen. You know our witnesses are not going to be abused, these people this is not their job to go and be yelled at. And you know we’re going to be professionals. And you know, if we have to stop and go to the judge, you know, then we’ll you can either finish your deposition and we’ll go to the judge and those questions. And you can see what happens or we can stop. You know, that’s when video is good, right? Because the judge can hear the tone and whatnot. And we all know that probably what 90 plus percent of the time the lawyer is not gonna want to go to a judge and have this scene and have to do this over again and whatnot.

So, you know, I do think the defending lawyers need to be prepared to step in and be a look, and when I say aggressive, I don’t mean in terms of personality, but aggressive, and also exercising some degree of control when it’s appropriate.

Tera Edwards: Absolutely. I think defense counsel needs to maintain, control and step in and defend their witness when appropriate. Absolutely. We’ve got a few minutes left. And what I want to hear from you guys, you have so much experience, the good, the bad, the ugly. Tell us a war story or 2 about a corporate representative deposition that you’ve seen go well because of certain things that were done before, or go horribly wrong. And here’s some of the things looking back, that you think should have been done by outside counsel to change the outcome of that deposition.

Christine Viggiano: I mean, I think I’ve alluded to it, but we had a case that was worth oh, another poll.

Tera Edwards: Everyone should be answering, Yes, by the way. Hi, Christine.

Christine Viggiano: No, I mean, we had a corporate rep who is no longer a corporate rep for us, but he would routinely testify that, you know. Yeah, maybe it was a hazard. Maybe we could have done something differently. It wasn’t the best prep. It was before I started at Caesars, so I take no responsibility for.

Tera Edwards: I don’t know this person. Correct.

Christine Viggiano: Yeah, no, it was before I started. So, before I changed the panel and all that jazz but I would reread the depths right because they would get passed around to the plaintiffs bar, and they would get brought up, and I would truly cringe. That was probably like reason number one that we did the Magna Boot camp, and since then I have not had any depositions where they’ve openly admitted that you know, the water on the floor probably was a hazard, and should have been seen by someone else.

Tera Edwards: Good mark. Here’s the perfect opportunity for you to fill everyone in about Magna’s corporate rep boot camp, and why everybody needs to send their witnesses there.

Christine Viggiano: We did have a question in the chat, and I responded to it. But yeah, I mean, it was, it was amazing. So yeah, Mark, go ahead.

Mark Calzaretta: Well, yeah, I mean, one of the things that we one of the things that’s unique about us is we specialize in within the practice of our jury consulting practices within witness prep, which is jury consultants do it, but not to the level that we’ve adopted, and it’s because we do so much corporate, you know, corporate defense work. And we were just seeing it so often, all the stuff that we’re talking about.

So, we developed a boot camp where we’ll come in and we’ll work with corporate legal departments, claims, departments, so on and so forth and work and like with Tera, with you like where we would come in. And as a team, we would, you know, teach a lot of the techniques that they would get taught otherwise. But they’re getting taught in a consistent manner, in and in a way where it’s fake, where it doesn’t count, so that anxiety thing like they they’re not under the gun where they’re going to be deposed. So, it’s like, it’s a lot easier to learn and then walk out of there. I think, Christine, you had mentioned that that was one of.

Christine Viggiano: Yeah, I think that was huge, and I think we had 14 individuals on it, maybe a little bit more. But I think it was huge, because, you know, they were getting crossed you know, so to speak, in front of everyone. So, you know. Yes, they messed up. But a lot of people messed up, and I could think that they saw, you know. Maybe they didn’t mess up on that specific question. But someone else did, and it gave everyone the opportunity to talk about another way that could have been responded to, or a better way to get responded to. And I think 1st of all, it created for me at least a camaraderie with corporate designees all across the country, right? These individuals that only get together usually once a year when we do our, you know, our risk summits.

But you know things that they’re seeing routinely and getting asked routinely, because, even though we are in different parts of the country and all of our properties like we’re still seeing the same things. I just. I know that they still talk about just like how beneficial it was, and I think I mean Tera, you did depth for us before and after, and I think it’s made a huge difference.

Tera Edwards: It has. It’s made a huge difference. So, as one of Christine’s outside counsel, I participated in the boot camp, and I, Mac, crossed all of the corporate reps, and then we talked about it, and it was hugely beneficial for me, as outside counsel, to get to know my corporate reps, and then also an opportunity to talk about common pitfalls and start working with these people so that they can be the best corporate rep witnesses, you know, when the time comes, Colin, Derek, I know we’ve got a couple more minutes left. Any war stories that you want to fill us in on.

Colin Hite: Well, I would say, don’t assume lawyers make the best corporate reps. Having been deposed earlier this year myself. And some of my corporate reps, and my little stable of reps are lawyers, obviously by not only training, but in practice. They were litigators in practice. One of them is great she gets being a corporate rep and being a witness, the other just honestly cannot get out of being a lawyer. He thinks he’s the defending lawyer, and he thinks he’s going to outsmart the deposing lawyer.

And so, the risk we have with him, and why he’s being kind of moved out a little bit is because in his mind he’s got his own theory of how he’s going to do the deposition, and you’re never quite sure what he’s going to do, no matter how much you’ve prepped, because he thinks he’s going to kind of win the case to. I think Mark was the one that said it. You’re not trying to win the case here. He thinks he’s going to win the case, and so he’s kind of uncontrollable is a witness, because he wants to be the lawyer, so he wants to thrust and parry with the deposing attorney, and he’s just too dangerous, because you can’t be sure what’s going to happen.

So, you know, sometimes lawyers, just, you know, everybody thinks, oh, lawyers will be a great witness because they understand the process. They know the process. They actually know too much sometimes, and have a hard time with it. And I would think long and hard about that. Obviously, like, I say, we have a good one. She’s awesome. She gets it, but probably more often than not they don’t make the best reps, because they do know actually too much. And they’re they actually know the rules too well and want to kind of play lawyer and not witness.

Tera Edwards: And I’ve seen some lawyers as witnesses overthink the answers to questions so much, and it’s like just answer the question that he asked. So, I’ve seen that, too. Derek, what about you?

Derrick Mullen: Well, I’ll make this very brief. My first, you know, corporate 30-B-6 time as a witness. For the 1st time I was. I was. I was terrible. I was horrible.

Mark Calzaretta: Hey!

Derrick Mullen: I didn’t know what the heck I was doing. Actually, I was, you know, I was.

Tera Edwards: Prepared. Well, is that.

Derrick Mullen: Well, I was. I was. What happened was I was at a company and when I got there the person I was working under he quit, and then the person that he was working for quit, and like I was doing the last Mohican standing, and I’m like they’re preparing me. 1st I was like, I don’t even know how to read a policy. Yeah, he was putting me up as a witness. But jeez! That was like a nightmare. I actually put that up as A, I put that in a frame, my 1st corporate, B-6 deposition, and I could say to myself, I was horrendous.

And my attorney, I remember the attorney just patting me on the back and goes. Don’t worry about it. And I said, Look, I just felt like I just wet my diaper, you know, but that one there was a combination of poor prep. And a poor witness, so that one is in the memory bank somewhere, you know.

So other than that, you know, it’s, I’ve had great success. And being a 30-B-6 witness as well as her fact. Witness. I can go on and on, but you always remember that 1st one.

Tera Edwards: Absolutely anything that you want to tell outside counsel that they better not do with your witnesses, or a good way to not be on panel anymore.

Derrick Mullen: Well, they got to stop. They have to stop. And I said this before. You have the depth and the deposition is terrible. Let’s be honest here, and then they’re patting them on the back like they did a great job. But then they go back to the office and say, what a terrible shit witness I had here. He was horrible. Just be honest, if the person’s not ready, don’t put him out there because it’s a no-win situation.

So, my pet peeve to attorneys is just to be honest and be upfront and if you have to work a bit harder on that witness to get them straight. Get them straight, you know. Don’t worry about the company having to pay a little additional dollars to get that witness prep. Obviously, if there’s a problem, a medical issue or some sort. Yeah, you can use that. Or maybe there’s somebody else where you try to get that witness is not gonna be able to help you.

I mean, and the bottom line is if they don’t know the answer. Just say, I don’t know the answer. Don’t start guessing and going down a rabbit hole and thinking that you know everything. So, I think that attorneys should at least be upfront and honest, even if they’re talking to management senior management that, you know, this witness is going to be shaky here, and we’re not sure we can correct this witness before the actual deposition.

Tera Edwards: Colin. Mark Christine, parting words of wisdom for anyone watching who’s a corporate rep, or outside counsel?

Colin Hite: I would say, you know. Look, I think, to Derek’s point, I think. And I say this at a lot of Magna conferences, you know. I think the insurance industry has probably at least intentionally or unintentionally beat defense counsel into believing we love being penny wise and pound foolish on expenses, and attorney time and expenses.

You know, look, if this witness is going to take like Derek says, an extra day of prep. An extra trip to meet the witness. Call the claim person or the in-house counsel and explain the situation. I mean, nobody wants a bad deposition. So, you know. Don’t just kind of ignore it and hope it’s gonna go. Well, because you’re afraid to either ask for the additional time or you’re gonna you know you think the bill’s gonna come back and get you in trouble. I mean, we want a good outcome. And it’s just a communication you’ve got to communicate with us.

And I would say, you know. 9 out of 10 times, if not hopefully, 10 out of 10 the per the in-house person is going to say absolutely, if that’s what it takes to get this person ready. Then that’s what we want to do, and don’t just think. Oh, well, the guidelines said, I have 5 h, and that’s all I get to prep the witness, or whatever. The guidelines are guidelines, they’re not rules, and they’re guidelines.

And if you talk to the in-house person and explain the situation. I would hope at least, I would say with us, you’re going to get permission. You just have to educate us to say, this is the situation. And then we’re like, Yeah, that makes perfect sense. We gotta do it.

Tera Edwards: Love it. Thank you.

Colin Hite: Don’t quote me to any of Markel’s people.

Tera Edwards: I was just going to say. All I heard was, guidelines are not rules, Colin, and I just meant that, you know.

Colin Hite: Guidelines are not rules.

Tera Edwards: I love it. Christine, Mark, parting thoughts?

Mark Calzaretta: I’m good.

Tera Edwards: Christine might be frozen. Can you hear us.

Mark Calzaretta: That is a frozen face that is a frozen face.

Derrick Mullen: She’s working now.

Mark Calzaretta: Oh, I.

Christine Viggiano: I froze, I know I froze, I froze.

Tera Edwards: And.

Colin Hite: Froze again.

Derrick Mullen: 2 roles.

Tera Edwards: She might be frozen again. All right. Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate your time.

Mark Calzaretta: Thank you.

Tera Edwards: This has been wonderful, great words of wisdom, hope everyone enjoyed it loved seeing you all have a great night.

Mark Calzaretta: Thanks, you too.

Colin Hite: Take care!

Mark Calzaretta: Bye, bye.

Tera Edwards: Bye. Thank you.