Experience

We are proud to present some of the litigation experience that Glennie Reporting Services has acquired since 1992. We are known for our attention to detail, and organization systems that accurately and efficiently track a tremendous amount of information, from exhibits to depositions, and all related documents.

Boston Chicken (BCI) vs. Arthur Andersen, et al.: In the fall of 2001, Glennie Reporting Services, hired by the law firm of Beus Gilbert, began depositions in an accounting/auditing and legal malpractice case. The BCI case began on the eve of the Enron debacle and mirrored the more publicized fraud allegations of both Enron upper management and Arthur Andersen auditors. Also named as defendants were several national investment firms. Our reporters traveled around the country for over a year covering depositions of BCI founding members, Andersen accountants/auditors, the investment firms' key advisors to BCI, BCI's prior lawyers and legal advisors, and various experts. We provided realtime hookup plus daily rough ASCIIs on every deposition. Imaging of every exhibit was offered to all parties in addition to hard copies, a space-saving aid in a case involving several thousand exhibits.

Calvin vs. Pinon: This construction defect case involved complex surety issues wherein Glennie Reporting Services provided the reporting and deposition services for all six parties in Phoenix and Chinle, Arizona. A total of 43 depositions were taken from laborers, architects, engineers, and geotechnical experts over a four-month period. The attorneys were provided with rough ASCII disks, expedited transcripts, and realtime hookups.

Palm Cove vs. Exeter Development: In the spring of 2000, GRS was hired by Turley, Swan & Childers to cover all depositions in this construction defect case. To accommodate this project, we enhanced our databases with terminology expressed in expert witness depositions in the fields of acoustical, architectural, concrete, and landscape engineering. Expedited transcripts were supplied daily. We also managed exhibits in this case which involved 10-15 defendants.

Unitech vs. Coopers & Lybrand: GRS was hired by both plaintiff, represented by Grant, Williams & Dangerfield, and defendants, Brown & Bain, to report more than 60 depositions over a six-month period. Testimony involved expertise in the fields of accounting/auditing, cellular phone/cellular phone accessories, and business acquisitions in the Far East. GRS provided realtime computer hookups to both sides during depositions, each side using different litigation-support software, and provided rough ASCIIs at the conclusion of each day's testimony.

Motorola vs. Integrated Circuit Systems: GRS provided deposition reporting for both sides of this semiconductor-related intellectual property case; Steptoe & Johnson (Phoenix and Washington, D.C. offices) and Fulbright & Jaworski (Austin, Texas) for the plaintiff, and Brown & Bain for the defendants. Twenty-five depositions were taken over a two-month period of time, all of which involved highly-technical expert testimonies. Our services included scheduling of videographers for all depositions as well as marking and managing consecutive exhibit numbers in two different numbering sequences, one set for each side.

Standard Chartered vs. Price Waterhouse: GRS provided deposition reporting for both sides during the retrial phase of this high-profile professional liability litigation; Beus Gilbert for the plaintiffs and Brown & Bain and Cravath, Swaine & Moore (New York) for the defendants. Numerous depositions of expert witnesses in accounting and banking were taken. GRS provided quick turnaround of transcripts, including several multiple-day depositions with daily copy. Voluminous exhibits to each deposition were copied and delivered to both parties on a daily basis.

McIntire vs. Motorola: GRS worked with 4 law firms representing the plaintiffs in this toxic tort case. More than 86 depositions were reported regarding several hundred plaintiffs alleging personal injury and property damage from exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE). Our office marked and maintained more than 600 exhibits.

MegaFoods Bankruptcy: GRS was hired to report all depositions taken in Phoenix for the plaintiff/debtor represented by the O'Melveny & Myers law firm of Los Angeles. Due to the nature of this bankruptcy case, testimony involved specific financial language. Twenty depositions were taken in a four-month period and all transcripts were prepared with quick turnaround.

Vidyasagar vs. Casa Grande Regional Medical Center: GRS provided deposition reporting to both sides of this case; Osborn Maledon for the plaintiffs and Brown & Bain for the defendant, CGRMC. Approximately 30 depositions were taken in this medical staff anti-trust/discrimination lawsuit. Testimony included depositions from several Pakistani doctors, causing a significant language challenge.

Heil vs. DuPont: This contract/warranty case asserted that DuPont's product was unsuitable for use in the manufacturing process of recycled garbage containers. Testimony included depositions from upper-level management and laborers involved in the manufacturing processes. The case required extensive travel to Georgia and Canada and double-tracking of depositions in various locations. GRS used a ghost system for marking and handling thousands of pages of exhibits from more than 50 depositions. We were initially hired by Brown & Bain, representing the defendants. As the case progressed, the Jones Day law firm of Atlanta, Georgia, hired Glennie Reporting Services to report their depositions in the case as well.

Please call our office at 602-266-6535 if you have questions
about any type of case not described here.