On the perils of making a disallowed argument.

Company B produces combat earplugs. It was sued by individual A for providing inadequate safety warnings.

In the course of jury trial, B sought to rely on a study that a competitor had conducted, on the effectiveness of the earplugs. The Judge ruled that the study was not admissible as evidence. The Judge did however allow B's lawyers to use the study to cross-examine one of A's expert witnesses.

B's lawyers then wanted to refer to the study in their closing arguments. The Judge held that she would allow it, if B's lawyers made clear that they were not relying on the study to prove the effectiveness of the earplugs.

However, in the course of oral argument, one of B's lawyers urged the jury to use its "common sense" as to whether a competitor would commission a study on the effectiveness of B's earplugs. The Judge stepped in, and eventually directed the jury to disregard the study for the purposes of determining whether the earplugs were effective.

After deliberating, the jury decided that B was liable. But here's the kicker - the Judge imposed sanctions of $10,000 and $2,000 on B's lawyers respectively.

Talk about an expensive slip of tongue!

That being said, I have my sympathies for B's lawyers. The lawyer who was making the oral closing submissions was not present when the Judge gave her directions on the study - her colleague was present. Perhaps she misunderstood the direction, as conveyed by her colleague. Perhaps she was just going with the flow when making her oral submissions. Perhaps she had rehearsed and re-rehearsed that portion of her oral submissions, and it just slipped out despite her awareness of the direction. But it does not change the Judge's conclusion that there was a "willful violation" of the Judge's order.

Harsh? Understandable? Link to the transcript in the comments below - you be the judge.