By Mehjabeen Rahman
The Expert Institute

Being familiar with objections to expert testimony is the best way to protect the credibility of your expert’s testimony and also challenge that of the opposing expert’s. From discovery to trial, there are several occasions where objections as to an expert’s opinion are proper. Below is a list of possible objections to look over before your next case involving an expert witness.

Deposition Objections

An expert’s deposition is an important part of their overall testimony. In addition to its scientific and technical nature, it is sworn testimony that can be used to later impeach an expert witness at trial. It is important to note, however, that a deposition is still different than trial and there are a number of objections that can be properly raised with respect to an expert’s deposition testimony. For example, counsel can object when a question asks the expert for:

1. Legal analysis over factual information

Questions that ask expert witness opinions about the legal analysis of the case rather than purely factual information are objectionable on the grounds that the testimony qualifies as attorney work product protected under FRCP 26(b)(4)(C). The Advisory Committee notes “[t]he refocus of disclosure on “facts or data” [changed from “data and other information” in 1993] is meant to limit disclosure to material of a factual nature by excluding theories or mental impressions of counsel.”

2. Privileged information

It is important to note that any objection based on privilege must be made or it is waived for the party that failed to raise it on the record.

3. Testimony outside the scope of expert’s assigned task

As a general matter, questions that attempt to elicit information outside the scope of the witness’ expertise are improper. Bailey v. Meister Brau, Inc., 57 F.R.D. 11, 14 (N.D. Ill. 1972). For example, in a medical malpractice case involving a faulty device, an expert may be familiar with other similar devices and face questions about his or her opinion about devices from other manufacturers. When appropriate, counsel can make the objection that the question is outside the scope of the expert’s assigned task.

4. Confidential information protected from persons at the deposition

Under FRCP 26(c)(1), a party can move for a protective order of parts of an expert’s testimony that may require disclosure of sensitive and protected information. For example, Rule 26(c)(1)(G) says “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including…requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” This is an important rule to remember when dealing with terms of a business contract or client medical history. The expert witness may answer when the certain persons designated in the protective order leave the deposition room.

5. Answers already provided by the expert earlier in the deposition

“Asked and answered” is a standard objection during depositions when the deponent is repeatedly asked a question they have answered. This is especially important if the question is asked for any other purpose except clarification of earlier testimony, for example if the question is repeated to harass or otherwise embarrass the witness.

6. Mischaracterization of earlier testimony

In some instances during an expert’s deposition, opposing counsel may phrase a question by misstating the expert’s earlier testimony. Especially where scientific or otherwise technical data and conclusions are concerned, it is important to clear these mischaracterizations up on the record when they occur.

7. Leading or coaching of the expert witness by opposing counsel

Another standard objection when an expert is under direct examination by opposing question. The expert is there to testify to factual matters and questions presented should not presuppose or suggest the answer. This sometimes occurs when the expert asks the interviewer for clarification about a question.

8. Improper form of a question

“Objection to form” is a vague and broad objection, commonly raised during depositions. Improper form objections can fall into many categories, where some jurisdictions require the objecting party to note a specific ground and others allow a general “objection to form.” A common example is when an expert is asked a compound question, meaning a series of multiple questions without giving the witness an opportunity to answer each individually. Whenever an objection to form is raised, the witness is still required to answer but the objection notes for the record that the form of the question was improper for being:

• Compound
• Prejudicial/Misleading
• Ambiguous
• Argumentative
• Calling for speculation
• Confusing

9. Opposing party’s failure to compensate the expert

The federal rules require that experts be properly compensated for providing deposition testimony under FRCP 26(b)(4)(E)(i)-(ii). When the deposition is at the request of opposing counsel, an objection is proper where an expert has not been fairly compensated for the separate time and work to prepare specifically for the deposition.

Pretrial and Trial Objections

1. Motions in limine

Typically, motions to exclude or otherwise challenge expert testimony will be raised during pretrial proceedings via motions in limine. The federal rules govern expert witness testimony under Rule 26 and provide the grounds for which an expert’s testimony can be excluded, including:

• For failure to properly designate an expert witness
• Failure to submit the expert’s report in a timely manner
• Failure to submit required documents like the expert’s CV or publications
• Failure to provide any notes or related material used by expert to form the expert opinion

2. Expert witness will not assist the trier of fact

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 703, an expert’s opinion is admissible only if the witness’ expertise and testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the case.

3. Expert lacks the proper qualifications

Scope: A scientific background is not required for an expert to qualify as an expert witness. However, it is important to know the scope of expert’s knowledge as it applies to the case. For example, an individual that was a teacher for deaf children for over 30 years does not automatically render the witness an expert in deaf people’s heightened sense of sight as a general fact.

Credentials: If an expert’s particular background or expertise is not appropriate for the issues on which he or she is expected to testify, then a motion in limine is proper. Similarly, if there are issues with the representations on the expert’s CV, these are often raised pretrial as well.

4. Reliability of principle and methods (Daubert challenges)

Expert report methodology: A Daubert motion is the most direct way to challenge the reliability of an expert’s opinion. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny set the standards for the admissibility of expert reports and testimony. The Daubert Court set out factors to be considered in determining whether an expert’s report is reliable:

1. whether the expert’s theory can and has been tested;
2. whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication;
3. the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique;
4. whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) expanded Daubert to include non-scientific expert testimony.

In 2000, the FRE 702 was changed to essentially codify the Daubert factors. For tips on successfully handling Daubert challenges, look here.

If the objections above are not raised in a pre-trial motions, they may still be raised when the expert witness is tendered at trial. Admissibility of expert witness testimony is governed by FRE Rules 702-705.

In addition to challenging the witness’ qualifications, scope of expertise and and reliability of principles and methods used to form the opinion, counsel can object when a question asked at trial:

1. Assumes facts not in evidence
2. Lacks the proper foundation
3. Seeks an answer already admitted by stipulation. See FRE 403.

Expert witnesses are retained to explain technical or scientific subject matter and help the trier of fact to understand certain aspects of the case. FRCP 26 protects attorney-expert communications and governs the disclosure of expert witness testimony. FRE Rules 702-705 govern the admissibility of expert opinions.

A fundamental principle of contract law is that a written contract is an agreement in writing that serves as proof of the parties’ obligations, writes Virginia Whitehill Guldi of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. What happens, however, when the parties forget some of the niceties of formalizing a written contract?

For one answer, she offers the recent decision in the case of Shank v. Fiserv, Inc., in which the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed Fiserv’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration at the outset of the case.

In that case, employee Shank had been dismissed after returning from a medical leave. The company cited a reorganization, but the plaintiff claimed proffered reason was pretextual and that she had been fired in violation of various federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and Title VII.

“Fiserv sought to dismiss the case and force arbitration, citing a ‘Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims’ that Ms. Shank had signed when she was hired and that would have contractually obligated her to arbitrate her claims. However, Fiserv’s argument had a flaw, said Ms. Shank, because it did not sign the agreement,” Guldi wrote.

The court agreed with the plaintiff.

Read the article.

Former Sprint Corp chief executive William Esrey and former chief operating officer Ronald LeMay sued the United States government for allegedly concealing its investigation into accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP’s promotion of tax shelters sold to the executives, Reuters is reporting.

The suit involves a 2002 Internal Revenue Service investigation into Ernst & Young’s promotion of tax shelters to its clients, including the two executives and settled the audit with EY in July 2003, without informing the executives, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs alleged that the IRS helped EY conceal the details of investigation from them, which meant they could not defend themselves against allegations by Sprint about their participation in the EY-promoted tax shelter schemes, Reuters reports.

Read the article.

A potentially precedent-setting lawsuit against gun manufacturers on behalf of families of those killed in the Sandy Hook school shooting will move forward to the discovery process, a Connecticut judge ruled Tuesday, according to a report on CNN.

The trial is set for April 3, 2018. The ruling opens the way for depositions and potential access to internal documents from Bushmaster Firearms and Remington.

CNN says this would be the first lawsuit of its kind to reach the discovery phase after the enactment of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA, according to experts.

“The companies contend they are shielded under the federal legislation, which absolves gun manufacturers from liability if a firearm is ‘misused’ in a crime to kill people.” the report says.

Read the article.

Now more than ever, corporate directors are finding themselves named in lawsuits, says Katherine Henderson, veteran insurance board advisor and partner with Wilson Sonsini, in a video posted by Boardroom Resources LLC.

“Today, any major decision from the company or board level seems to result in some form of legal action,” Boardroom Resources says on its website. “All this increased litigation begs the question – what’s the level of personal liability for directors on public boards and how can their liability be mitigated?”

In the video, Henderson discusses the current state of board liability, along with what you need to know about your D&O policy. She also outlines what steps to take to mitigate your risk of being sued.

Watch the on-demand video.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that two defense lawyers accused of spying on a plaintiff’s Facebook page can be prosecuted for attorney misconduct, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

The court described the case as involving a “novel ethical issue.”

“Two defense attorneys in New Jersey are accused of snooping on the private Facebook account of a plaintiff suing their client,” the report says. “The Facebook account was at first publicly viewable. But after the plaintiff tightened the settings and put his profile page behind a privacy wall, the lawyers didn’t stop monitoring it. A paralegal at their firm was able to get access by sending a Facebook friend request to the plaintiffs without revealing her employer.”

Read the article.

The State Department has agreed to a conservative legal group’s request to question several current and former government officials about the creation of Hillary Clinton’s private email system, reports the Associated Press.

A judge granted the group, Judicial Watch, limited discovery to ask the officials why Clinton relied on an email server in her New York home during her tenure as secretary of state.

If the judge approves of the agreement, lawyers from Judicial Watch will be allowed to depose Clinton’s top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy, the report says.

Read the report.

Abbott Laboratories didn’t cause medical providers to submit false payment claims to Medicare for unapproved stents, a Texas jury ruled, thwarting a whistle-blower’s lawsuit seeking as much as $1 billion, reports Bloomberg.

A former salesman for Abbott’s predecessor Guidant claimed the company pushed bile duct stents that were intended for short-term purposes for more complex vascular use. His 2006 lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. government accused the company of encouraging doctors and hospitals to code bills to Medicare falsely.

“Abbott, which acquired Guidant’s stent business in 2006, denied during the trial in Dallas federal court that it induced anyone to submit false claims to Medicare. Its lawyers told jurors the use of biliary stents for peripheral vascular or arterial disease was accepted medical practice and Medicare knowingly approved payments,” Bloomberg reports.

Read the article.

The Justice Department has sued to stop Halliburton Co. from acquiring oilfield services rival Baker Hughes, the Associated Press and CNBC are reporting.

The deal would combine two of the world’s three leading providers of those services to oil and gas companies and would create a bigger rival to the industry leader, Schlumberger.

“But Justice Department officials say in their lawsuit that the Halliburton-Baker Hughes deal threatens to raise prices and eliminate competition,” the report says.

Read the article.

Encouraged by consumer groups and trial lawyers, federal regulators are pushing for limits on arbitration provisions in consumer contracts, writes George Calhoun in IfrahLaw’s FTC Beat.

“At its core, the debate is about whether companies may compel consumers to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes and – perhaps more significantly – bar consumers from class action remedies as part of the arbitration requirement,” he writes.

“We will not be surprised to see some companies restrict their consumer offerings or increase prices to account for these new rules.” the article continues. “If you work in American business, we urge you to take notice of these changes and review how to protect your company from undue litigation in future contracts.”

Read the article.

Just days after the city of Dallas filed an R-rated defense of the City Council’s vote to ban Exxxotica from the city-owned convention center, the porn expo has fired back that Dallas officials knew exactly what they were getting when they took the porn expo’s $28,080 last year, writes Robert Wilonsky for The Dallas Morning News.

The porn expo’s response is in response to a March 25 Dallas filing, which claimed Exxxotica’s organizers misrepresented the amount of nudity and sexually oriented activity that would take place during Exxxotica’s first event at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center last August. “As far as Dallas’ attorneys are concerned, broken promises to keep women (mostly) clothed trump Exxxotica’s allegations that the City Council trampled its First Amendment rights when it voted to ban the event two months ago,” reports Wilonsky.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater will hear Exxxotica’s motion for a preliminary injunction on April 18.

Read the article.

By Mark Perkins
Perkins & Associates, LLC

In any instance involving the tragic loss of life or serious injury in commercial truck collisions, extensive discovery is required and one of the critical areas focuses on proof of hours of service violations. It then focuses on how the proof of chronic violation of hour of service safety regulations can provide the basis for proof not only of negligence, but punitive damages against the company and driver.

Where the driver’s log and grid show 3.5 hours driving time, but shows a route of 300 miles being covered, one can conclude:

• The driver has lied about the time he spent driving, or
• The driver was flagrantly speeding throughout his route (a truck obeying speed limits on highways will average 50 miles in an hour).

If a driver shows a 24-hour period of duty and begins with “driving” as the first entry, the driver has probably cheated on listing his duty time. It usually takes from 30-60 minutes for a driver to report to duty to the yard, get all of his paperwork, inspect his load, and perform the required inspections on his rig.

Where a driver logs 11 hours of driving time for the preceding 24-hour period and fails to get or log 10 solid hours of “off duty” time before resuming duty and driving, all of his driving for the following day is illegal and in violation of the safety regulations set forth in 49 C.F.R. 395.3.

Time and location of sequential fuel receipts can be important in showing the impossibility of compliance with the hours of service regulations in 49 C.F.R. 395.3.

Plaintiff’s attorneys investigating hours of service are suspicious that hours of service have been violated and records of driver’s duty status have been falsified until proven otherwise. In evaluating and defending claims for trucking companies, the defense attorney needs to THINK like his opponent.

Review and careful analysis  of the following documents helps cross reference criteria to check for validity or invalidity of driver’s duty hours:

1. Driver’s log as required by 49 C.F.R. 395.8 for the day of the collision.
2. Driver’s logs for defendant driver for the 6 months preceding the collision in question.
3. Graph Grid required by 395.8 (g) for that day and for the 6 months preceding the collision.
4. Records of automatic on-board recording devices required by 49 C.F.R. 395.15 for the day of the collision and the 6 months preceding.
5. All payroll, or payment logs, or records for that driver for the time period, including the collision and 6 months prior thereto.
6. All W-2’s for the driver in question for the withholding period, which includes the collision in question, and all reporting periods for 6 months prior thereto.
7. All fuel receipts incurred from the time the truck left the carrier’s premises until the time of the collision.
8. All Bills of Ladings and manifests pertaining to property transported and/or delivered from the time the truck left the carrier’s premises until the time of the collision.

The reason plaintiff’s attorneys ask for six months of logs is because of the belief that driver and company’s violation of hours of service regulations fall into a pattern. Examination of the logs and data for the prior 6 month period may  reveal those patterns. Where such patterns exist, an argument will be made of flagrant disregard of safety regulations, which “needlessly endanger” the general public (for those familiar with the “reptile theory” the phrase “needlessly endanger” is common).

The following post was written by a plaintiff’s attorney and is common refrain among plaintiff’s counsel:

49 C.F.R. Part 395 protects the public from the hazard of fatigued drivers operating huge trucks in their midst.  The hours of service regulations have been written from the blood of innocent citizens massacred by huge trucks at the hands of drivers impaired from fatigue.  Where a driver and carrier intentionally violate the safety regulations designed to guard against fatigue, they have shown a conscious disregard for the safety of the public using our highways.  Where such a fatigued driver has caused injury or death, the driver and carrier have acted with conscious and reckless disregard for the life and safety of the public on the highways.  This conduct justifies a punitive damage award against them, in addition to compensatory damages.

A bill approved by Congress on  Dec. 3, 2015 calls for a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration study on truck drivers’ long commutes and the safety hazards they present.

The $305-billion Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act requires that  the U.S. Department of Transportation agency to track workforce commutes of two hours or more and provide an analysis of them in 18 months.

The section of legislation inserted into the potential new law is a direct result of the crash that almost killed former Saturday Night Live cast member Tracy Morgan. It states:

“Section 5515 requires the Administrator of the FMCSA to conduct a study on the safety effects of a motor carrier operator commuting more than 150 minutes. On June 17, 2014, a tractor-trailer struck a van near Cranbury, New Jersey, killing one person and injuring several others. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, the truck driver had been awake more than 24 hours at the time of the crash. In addition, the Georgia-based driver had driven 12 hours overnight to his job in Delaware before starting his shift. The study shall address the prevalence of long commutes in the industry and the impact on safety.”

If you’re a trucking defense attorney and you don’t evaluate the case like a plaintiff’s attorney would, you are not providing diligent representation.

If   you’re a trucking company or insurance company and you get offended by your legal representative diligently looking for problems and thinking like his opponent, you need to get over it. Your defense attorney is trying to help your company survive and thrive in this litigious society.  Be grateful that your legal counsel is a looking for problems. It’s better to know in advance than to be surprised.

Day Pitney LLP and Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC announce the launch of their joint Title IX Investigations Initiative. This initiative will allow the firms to provide both existing and new clients greater services in the wake of a growing number of Title IX investigations, the firm says.

Title IX, enacted in 1972, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded educational programs and activities. This is a growing area of concern for many public and private schools, colleges and universities. Besides applying to faculty employment and sport team participation, Title IX also applies to how academic institutions are handling complaints of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

“Our collaborative practice will promptly investigate allegations and provide the results of that investigation to the academic institution – the idea is to combine the best practices from law enforcement and internal corporate investigations with experience in working within the unique setting of academia,” says Day Pitney attorney Steven Cash, who has served at the federal and state level in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, including the Manhattan District Attorney’s Investigations Division, and as Counsel on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

The New York Times recently reported how some colleges have increased budgets and have even hired teams within schools to handle the increasing number of cases in an article, “Colleges Spending Millions to Deal With Sexual Misconduct Complaints.”

“Our goal is to provide academic institutions with a team that has the necessary skills that are not generally found in educational facilities, including prosecutorial, investigative, and Title IX litigation experience,” said Paul Thaler, Managing Partner of Cohen Seglias’ Washington, DC office. “ In addition we understand the sensitivity required by academic institutions to oversee these investigations.”

The Title IX Investigations Initiative’s team also includes Christopher Carusone, former Chief Deputy Attorney General in the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office and Secretary of Legislative Affairs and Executive Deputy General Counsel in the Pennsylvania Governor’s Office; Stanley A. Twardy, Managing Partner at Day Pitney and former United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut; and Helen Harris, Day Pitney partner and White Collar group chair.

Photo by Michael Vadon

Less than 24 hours after Donald Trump threatened to sue for votes ahead of a potentially contested GOP nominating convention, a move that could foreshadow a new phase in the GOP’s ugly primary fight, his campaign backed down, reports Time.

A Trump senior advisor later said that Trump’s “lawsuit” was not in fact meant for a court of law, but for the Republican National Committee’s committee on contests — which under GOP rules hears complaints over the allocation and selection of delegates.

“It’s clear why. Election lawyers and party operatives said challenges to the arcane state-by-state delegate selection rules being used to outfox Trump would face an unwelcome reception in court,” the report says.

Read the article.

Janis Hui Ozaki has joined Dykema as senior counsel in the firm’s Los Angeles office. She joins Dykema’s Litigation Department.

In a release, the firm said Ozaki has extensive experience handling business and real estate disputes, including those relating to leasing, purchase and sale agreements, contract breaches, partnership disputes, and fraud. She has represented clients in Hong Kong, China, Mexico and Canada. She speaks fluent Cantonese and conversational French, and is part of the Hong Kong Association of Southern California, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles, the Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association, the Asian Pacific American Bar Association, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, ProVisors, and Bruin Professionals.

Ozaki was named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers from 2012-2016 and has been listed annually among the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Los Angeles Magazine. She also is a lecturer in law at the UCLA School of Law.

“Janis is a great addition to our Los Angeles office as senior counsel,” said Michael P. Wippler, Managing Member for Dykema in Los Angeles. “She’s a talented attorney who’s made a name for herself in Southern California along with her extensive work with clients in several countries. She has a track record of strong client service and will be a valuable addition to our team.”

Ozaki received her J.D. at the UCLA School of Law and her B.A. in economics at Dartmouth College.

A cousin and the self-styled common-law wife of the late John O’Quinn, the man deemed “King of Torts” by Forbes after his death in a Houston car accident in 2009, are engaged in a fight over the place of interment of the litigator’s body. That fight has seen the alleged “wrongful disinternment” of his body from a gravesite on the lawyer’s 5,000-acre Texas ranch to a Louisiana cemetery, reports The Houston Chronicle.

O’Quinn’s won more than $21 billion in verdicts and settlements for his clients, estimates his charitable foundation.

O’Quinn, who died at 68, and Darla Lexington were together for more than a decade and shared his River Oaks home but never married. Lexington accuses Service Corporation International affiliate Geo. H. Lewis & Sons of failing to get her permission to move O’Quinn’s casket or inform her that he’d been buried in Louisiana.

Read the article.

Exterro has published a new white paper that features e-discovery insights by Aaron Crews, Head of E-Discovery at Walmart, along with other e-discovery experts, on creating a defensible, yet cost-effective process.

The company says the complimentary white paper discusses how to leverage the recent FRCP amendments to save money, how to develop new e-discovery techniques that reduce e-discovery spend but keep your process “reasonable,” and how e-discovery search/collection/review technology should fit into your process.

Download the white paper.

Bill Cosby’s criminal defense lawyer has admitted he hosted a fundraiser for a key witness in the comedian’s ongoing court battle in Pennsylvania, reports LawNewz. But it wasn’t illegal or shady in context, he claimed in court documents.

The report says attorney Brian McMonagle said he supported the failed 2015 reelection campaign of former Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor with a March fundraiser. He personally donated $2,500 while others in his law firm put out at least $1,500.

“Castor had been District Attorney from 2000 to 2008, during which he investigated Andrea Constand’s claim that comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted her,” the site reports.

Read the article.

Modern investigations turn on electronically stored evidence, which presents unique challenges both in finding critical information and scaling efforts to cull and analyze large volumes of data.

To help deal with these challenges, Recommind has prepared a new ebook titled Technology Assisted Investigation: A Quick Guide for Superior Fact-Finding.

Designed for lawyers, investigators, and compliance officers tasked with managing and executing internal and regulatory investigations, this eBook provides practical guidance on how to leverage strategic technologies to cut through data, find what matters faster, and deliver results on time and on budget, the company says.

Download the ebook.

A venture capitalist who worked for Sequoia Capital for almost 20 years and an exotic dancer who has filed claims of being used as a “sex  slave” are involved in a breach of contract suit that arose from an alleged agreement for the businessman to pay her $40 million to halt a personal injury suit.

Michael Goguen and exotic dancer Amber Baptiste met at a Dallas strip club, reports The Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

“Baptiste says Goguen sexually abused her for more than a decade and then reneged on an agreement to pay her $40 million to halt a personal injury lawsuit, according to her March 8 breach-of-contract lawsuit. Six days later, Goguen countersued saying the relationship was consensual and alleging that Baptiste tried to extort him because he declined to make a greater commitment to her,” the report says.

Sequoia Capital, where Goguen worked for almost 20 years, said Goguen’s departure from the firm “was the appropriate course of action.”

Read the article.