 |
 |
|
 |
WSRcg - LitigationBelow we present a synopsis of a sampling of cases where we have been engaged as expert witnesses. In each scenario we summarize the nature of the case and industry involved, the side the attorneys that engaged us represented, the nature of our work, and the result of the litigation/dispute. Since 1987, Warren Reid and members/colleagues of WSR Consulting Group, LLC, have been recognized and accepted as experts, special masters, and expert witnesses in over 50 litigation matters tried in Superior Courts, Federal Courts, and the Court of Federal Claims as well as numerous arbitrations and mediations. We have successfully demonstrated our education, training, experience and expertise in matters focusing on a broad range of high-tech issues, computer and systems project failure, software failure and IP infringement/misappropriation matters in the United States, Canada, Asia and Europe.
We have been qualified to give expert witness testimony in:
Our expertise and testimony and litigation experience includes:
Sampling of Litigation Cases Major Health Care Provider and its ERP Vendor - JOINT DEFENDANTS - CUSTOMER & VENDOR Dispute: An integrator/outsourcer sues hospital defendant for $10,000,000 claiming that it was ready to go-live with the system several months earlier, but for delays caused by the vendor and customer. Our Role: Both Warren Reid and Randy Brown (of WSR Consulting Group, LLC) were deposed and testified in arbitration that the Integrator: had poorly staffed this mission critical project; had discarded all reasonable project management principles, practices, standards, and tools for a project of this size and nature; had abandoned all rational, industry standard and contractually promised systems life-cycle methodologies; had failed to implement and execute a reliable and sound test strategy and plan; had never stabilized the system's underlying technical infrastructure; and contributed to concurrent delays through its own critical, ongoing systems defects. Result: Pending. US Manufacturer/ Distributor of Custom Products – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: Involving a failed Oracle Enterprise Resource Panning (ERP) system and its Big 5 consulting systems integrator. Our Role: Our report and testimony showed project was poorly managed, did not follow promised or industry standard methodologies, was never completely tested, and used unacceptable data conversion and systems implementation methods. Integrator of Microsoft Solutions - PLAINTIFF – INTEGRATOR Dispute: Legislature hired integrator to build a legislation tracking system based on Microsoft’s Sharepoint platform. New administration refused to honor the bargain struck in the development contract. Our Role: We explained the unique business bargain created by the contract, and demonstrated that the integrator applied an appropriate methodology for that unique circumstance. We also demonstrated that the customer introduced an unreasonable amount of change during acceptance testing. Result: Our expert analyses was instrumental in conduct of depositions. The Defendant settled on terms that paid the Developer all of the contract price, interest and legal costs. Internet Service and Content Provider – DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER Dispute: Stockholders claiming failure to adequately disclose major changes in its technology strategy in its Prospectus. Our Role: We demonstrated changes were evolutionary, concurrent and compatible with the development of the Internet, and were disclosed consistent with industry common practices. Result: Arbitrators awarded most favorable result to defendant. Specialized Banking Software Firm – DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER Dispute: Defendant accused of IP infringement and misappropriation. Defendant was seeking to sell an integrated software system containing some residual content of the originally licensed programs. Our Role: Issues were to determine how much residual content of the original software existed after several years of development by client. We analyzed extensive development history and source code for the software system acquired under exclusive license for defendant firm. Result: Client was awarded a favorable ruling after deposition and testimony before arbitrator established that the residual content was effectively nil. Large State Government – PLAINTIFF – CUSTOMER Dispute: Customer paid over $100,000,000 to a large government contractor to develop a child support enforcement system. Beyond costs, non-compliance penalties and denial of Federal funding impacted the state financially -- approaching a billion dollars. Our Role: We inspected program source code and rendered expert opinions on system performance issues, software configuration management, testing and validation methodologies, and program complexity metrics. Result: The state’s attorneys successfully stressed the importance of a pervasive defect that we discovered standing apart from certain contractual ambiguities, entirely outside of the responsibility, knowledge, or control of the state. Utility Asset Management System – DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER Dispute: Developer built database, geographic reference maps and application to manage assets and outage events for a large utility operator. However, operator prolonged the site acceptance test with multiple changes and then terminated project on the cusp of completion. Our Role: We analyzed the error and modification data from the acceptance test and advised the client on the chances of success at trial. Result: The Developer and Customer settled. Commercial Software Development Firm – DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER Dispute: Allegations of copyright and trade secret infringement by a large competitor – with projected damages far exceeding the client’s financial base. Our Role: We enumerated answers to detailed allegations, one by one, to the effect that most, if not all, described commonplace programming techniques of longstanding usage in the computer industry -- not protected innovations in any ordinary or legal sense. Result: Losing a succession of MSJs, plaintiffs narrowed the scope of their complaint and pared their settlement position well below the client’s cost projections for continuing the case to a defense verdict, resolving the matter in settlement. U.S. Government and President of the United States – DEFENDANTS – CUSTOMER Dispute: The President, as head of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission agreed to close down a computerized robotics army base that failed to meet contractual performance requirements during Desert Storm. The government refused to pay the $150 million owed to plaintiff software, robot and smart building developer. Our Role: With secret clearance, our team visited the base site, reviewed and analyzed performance history and stats of the base during the war, and developed a 3-D simulation model which proved that there were fundamental and pervasive design and implementation flaws and decisions unilaterally made by the plaintiff developer that caused the system (and the robots) to crash. Result: Overwhelming and complete exoneration for defendants Dispute: Airline sought damages from a commercial software development firm for failure to implement an automated timekeeping system, as a consequence of excessive demand for server resources, unacceptable system response time, and other persistent functional defects. Our Role: Assisted attorneys in preparing to depose percipient witnesses and clarifying the essential technical significance of their testimony and analyzed controversial performance measurements to deliver candid assessment of case. Result: Client negotiated an acceptable settlement. Web Application Developer – PLAINTIFF – DEVELOPER Dispute: Large industrial/consumer retailer stole ideas for web-based applications developed by Plaintiff in an idea submission. Our Role: We provided a definitive analysis that demonstrated that the retailer copied the ideas for the web-based application directly from the prototypes that the developer provided. Result: Developer received payment in a settlement. Web Browser Developer/Portal – DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER Dispute: Developer sued by shareholders after their IPO value dropped considerably, for allegedly releasing poor and untested Internet service product(s). Our Role: Our expert reports and testimony demonstrated that the systems were well architected and designed, tested, and released following better than industry accepted practices in: quality assurance; project organization and management; acceptance, alpha and beta test release criteria; and post production help desk and defect correction/control. Result: Defendant exonerated by arbitration panel. Big 5 Consulting Firm – DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR Dispute: The Fortune 500 customer alleged that for the $50 million fee, the integrator failed to properly develop and implement a large ERP project. Our Role: Areas in our expert report covered: the role of the System Integration Project Manager; control over sub-contractors; the stability, performance, functionality of the system; issues of scope creep; the design/use of the Oracle data base; and readiness to go live. Result: Settlement favorable to Integrator. Multiple Insurance Companies – DEFENDANT - INSURERS Dispute: Plaintiff’s claimed “sue and labor” in Y2K matter. One case alone was for $74 million. Our Role: To determine to what extent the remedial costs expended by insureds; were reasonable; were paid for “fortuitous” events; really saved the insurers money. We also defined and applied new technology and meaning to the terms “destruction, distortion and corruption of data” in time-honored insurance coverage policy interpretation. Result: All cases were settled or won with no insurer liability or payout. International Medical Company – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: Involved a system developed by a major outsourcer which failed to perform. Our Role: Our research, report, and testimony helped show that the system developed was not of workmanlike quality, was not built using the outsourcer’s “System Life Cycle Methodology” or any industry standards, and did not work. Result: Judgment of fraud against defendant. Commercial Software Development Firm – DEFENDANT - DEVELOPER Dispute: Allegations of negligent failure to deploy a Time and Attendance software system and effectively integrate multiple predecessor systems for a major commercial airline. Our Role: We demonstrated that after an extensive turnover in the customer’s IT management, the customer effectively abandoned its commitment to the project for several months, making it impossible for the defendant vendor to progress. Result: Successfully negotiating a drastic reduction of plaintiff’s demand, defendant’s insurance carrier elected to settle. International Fast Food Company – DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER Dispute: Developer sued over the refusal of the customer to install and pay for an integrated POS system. Our Role: We testified and demonstrated that the system was fundamentally flawed, would never have worked, was not fault tolerant, couldn’t handle peak performance, and was inappropriate for intended environment. Result: Defendant exonerated – no damages. Major Utility Company – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: integrator failed to design and implement on schedule a Human Resources system based on highly customized software developed by a celebrated international systems developer. Our Role: We reviewed the project management processes promised versus those used. Our findings and conclusions were a major element in settlement discussions. Result: Very favorable settlement to our client, the customer. Malaysian Stock Exchange – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: Issues resolved including as-promised design vs. as-produced design, project management and budgeting/estimation issues, poor quality of system, readiness to go live, and contract interpretation. Our Role: Engagement to determine whether or not said exchange had a viable claim against its computer systems vendors, developers and integrators. Result: Case settled in favor of Plaintiff Large Magazine Subscription Company – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: Integrator/Developer failed to properly install a new system involving very complicated data base requirements. Our Role: Involved source code issues, quality of design and implementation, year 2000 issue, recovery and restart failure, performance, and other issues. Result: Case settled at very favorable terms to plaintiff. Fortune 500 Company – PLAINTIFF - CUSTOMER Dispute: A large Time and Attendance software package failed causing nearly incalculable liabilities of numerous union contract violations from failure to manage basic payroll functions for 150,000 employees. Our Role: Expert report described a persistent pattern of knowing, intentional misrepresentation by defendants of the performance characteristics of the proposed system, costs of required hardware, and benchmark studies conducted by defendants, and experience with customers of comparable size. Result: A few days after expert deposition testimony severely attacked a central defense theory, the case settled for what the lead attorney characterized as “… 50% more than my most optimistic projection.” Canadian Government – DEFENDANT – CUSTOMER Dispute: Government terminated a contract with a Big 5 consulting firm in project to build a fully automated, state-of-the-art federal employee payroll system. Our Role: Our expert reports showed failings in project management, risk management, quality management, configuration management, estimation, design and staffing – all of which caused delays that triggered the termination for cause. Result: Consulting Firm plaintiff settled on terms favorable to the government. Provincial Government – DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER Dispute: Massive delays in a large-scale province-wide healthcare reimbursement and information system. Our Role: Engaged by defense attorneys as a strategist and expert to address cause of delays, poor quality in testing, unsuitability for intended purpose, not ready to go live, and cause of cost overruns. Result: Change in government brought about settlement. Large Systems Integrator – DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR Dispute: Breach of contract in development of special statewide computer system involving over $100 million. Our Role: Established that, in fact, plaintiff vendor "with knowledge": severely underestimated project; assigned inadequate staff; didn't understand requirements; designed/developed poor quality system; didn't adequately test system; and that system wouldn't have worked. Result: Change in government resulted in settlement. Manufacturer of Hi-Tech Products – PLAINTIFF – DEVELOPER Dispute: Right to import into U.S. hi-tech products that permit the unlocking of certain security devices (hardware locks) on PCs. Our Role: Delivered written testimony and proofs that there exists a "substantial legitimate commercial purpose" for the product. Result: Products allowed for import. Developer of Complex POS System – DEFENDANT – DEVELOPER Dispute: Financing consortium sought to prove that developed complex POS (Point of Sale) system was not fit for purpose after pilot installations in a large multi-state fast-food retail chain. Our Role: Developed standards/models for proving delivered systems met contract and industry standards; and that the software worked; the hardware worked; the users “liked it" despite existence of "acceptable" defect levels. Result: After testimony, co-Plaintiff switched sides. Defendant exonerated. Integrator/Vendor of Financial Systems – DEFENDANT - INTEGRATOR Dispute: Case involved failed Savings and Loan company suing systems integrator/vendor for alleged faulty systems solution. Our Role: Established damage ceiling and that solution would have worked had plaintiff allowed defendant to properly install/test system, and train users. Result: Defendant exonerated. Software Developer – PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER Dispute: Insurance bad faith matter re loss of intellectual properties, business and technical records, and eventual business failure after vandalism. Our Role: Established long term business viability of plaintiff by developing creative model for successful government sub-contracting entities. Also, developed alternative damage strategies. Result: Favorable settlement for Plaintiff. Software Developer – PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER Dispute: Competitor hired former employees and infringed on technology patent. Our Role: Engaged as consultant to discover if new technology patent was infringed by competitor hiring former employees. Result: Sealed agreement. Intellectual Property Matter – APPOINTED BY COURT Our Role: Appointed Special Master to the Court in determining/opining on whether proprietary software had been stolen (illegally copied) and was being illegally used by a competitor. Solution involved high-tech sleuthing, code comparison, and computer, software and operating system forensics. Result: We reported our conclusion of infringement to the judge. Settlement sealed. State Government with Large Dispatch System – DEFENDANT - CUSTOMER Dispute: State Government hired a large integrator to install a complex computer-aided dispatch system – but cancelled the contract after many delays and poor testing results. Integrator sued for $100 million. Our Role: Our expert analysis and report revealed that integrator grossly underestimated the project due to its inexperience with these types of systems – compounded by poor project management tools, poor collection of user requirements, insufficiently qualified staff, and inadequate testing approaches. Result: Jury rejected lawsuit, and awarded Defendant $1 million for legal costs. Developer of Wholesale Distribution Software – PLAINTIFF - DEVELOPER Dispute: Misappropriation of trade secrets and bad faith as large company pretends to perform due diligence – but in the end rejects purchase of Plaintiff company in bad faith for alleged poor performance, and instead very quickly develops and releases a competing system with a totally different GUI. Our Role: We demonstrated that the Defendant’s system used a virtually identical suite of functionality and underlying algorithms – and opined that the Defendant stole these trade secrets. Also we proved that the Defendant stacked the due diligence testing to purposefully fail by applying unrealistic volumes of data and criteria. Result: The Defendant settled in favor of the Plaintiff the day before the trial. Other Litigation Matters
Sampling of Lawyer References
Call Warren S. Reid at (818) 986-8842 to discuss your case.
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home | What's Up | Expertise | Services | Consultants | Presentations | Publications Archives | Clients | Links | Print Help | Contact Us |
| WSR Consulting Group LLC · Los Angeles · (818) 986-8842 · www.wsrcg.com · wsreid@wsrcg.com Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006 WSR Consulting Group, LLC. All rights reserved |