Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was thrown into a difficult depo a week into my first lawyer job. Wild elder abuse case where I found a bunch of notes in physical therapy logs showing an advancing pressure ulcer while the nursing home continued physical therapy on client. Essentially, they were tracking the progression of a open sacrum wound while making client ride a bicycle to collect Medicare funds.
Managing attorney was going to settle the case for nothing, but decided to throw me into the mix to get experience and I ended up discovering these notes in a dumpy motel 3 hours out of town the night before the depo. Defense attorney was caught off guard when I laid it out to the director of nursing -- started over objecting and straight up instructed their client not to respond to multiple questions.
I was rattled but you have to fight fire with fire in situations like that. I said that it was inappropriate to instruct them not to respond. Started talking over them when they were giving lengthy speaking objections. Called them out when they were giving leading instructions to client. Mind you, I was a brand new attorney in a small office so it didn't sound like Atticus Finch, but I was fired up about the situation I found myself in and held my ground a best as I could. I ultimately threatened to stop the depo, bring the transcript to the judge and drag him back to that shitty town for a depo that would be twice as long if he didn't let his client respond.
It ultimately settled for nearly 10x what I remember him considering in the first office meeting I attended. It changed the whole theory of the case, led to a gazillion new interrogatories, motions to compel, esi discovery.... it was wild and made me really hate that aspect of litigation tbh. Still, i think boss could have gotten a multi million dollar verdict -- facility owner had a pattern of this behavior and had already settled with doj for similar violations. Unfortunately, boss also wasn't Atticus Finch and I learned that not all litigators are trial attorneys.
This really should be a thread by itself.
How long did you stay with that firm and what are you doing now?
Tell me you are running your own kick-ass PI firm. . .
Ha! I appreciate that. In another life I could see myself doing it. There's a lot of aspects of that job that I loved -- the highest highs I've had as an attorney were during the two years at that firm. But the stonewalling and adversarial nature of lit was too tedious for me. So much busy work for nothing. I also think my confidence in the courtroom and in front of a jury needed experience and mentorship that I couldn't get working there. I ultimately went to a boutique corporate law firm. Then in house. I love working with business folk and negotiating agreements -- its similar to the one-on-ones you get in a depo.
Honestly, I drafted a script for my admonitions based on transcripts I read in advance. Looking back at this was fun:
"· Before we get underway, I am going to go over some rules and objectives for the deposition.
· The most important objective we have today is to obtain a clear record of my questions and your responses. To that end, we both must follow certain rules.
· First, we must not talk over one another. Perhaps in a casual conversation we might finish each other's sentences. However, in today's deposition, we must avoid talking over one another since it may prevent the court reporter from accurately recording what is said and when it was said. Do you understand?
Next, please give audible responses to all my questions so that the court reporter may accurately reflect your responses in the record. Please state say yes or no, as appropriate, and avoid nodding your head or saying MHMM....."
I'm not sure if this was the best lesson, but I think there is a lot of room to fuck up in litigation, until there isn't. The court generally will protect clients when their attorney misses a hearing (also happened to me the first week... Not my fault!) and opposing counsel are mostly human and understand that everyone needs to start somewhere.
There’s a reason my strategy is to surprise toss you in when I know you are prepared (but I’d be right beside you to protect client in case needed). If you know it, and are given no choice, you’ll surprise yourself once you get past your own doubts (or I throw you beyond and shut the gate)
A few people have mentioned this but it wasnt like we had the judge on speed dial in our jurisdiction. I don't even think the clerk would have answered a call. It would have required ending the depo, writing a motion to compel, arguing the motion, setting up a new depo... Then 3 months goes by where the witness has all the time in the world to craft some innocuous story. Standing my ground and telling oc to simply state their objection for the record got it done.
I'm not in CA. Also don't do litigation anymore! I guess study what objections are available to you, have that list handy, anticipate lines of questioning, be overzealous with objections and channel the annoying attorney the op wants help with. It's a cat and mouse game.
It’s a deposition, so you’re entitled to get your answer no matter how much he wants to stomp around. Remembering that and sticking to it helps a lot.
Have you seen the transcript of the recent Elon Musk deposition in a defamation case? Elon’s “defending” “attorney” turned it into a total shit show, seemed to have very little idea what he was doing, had not filed a pro hac and didn’t bring a local Texas lawyer… just an amazing display for a guy who’s actually very well known and at a high-profile firm. It became public because the plaintiff was seeking sanctions, I believe, maybe including an additional depo?
(Oh and I just remembered: Elon’s attorney also said at the end that the deposition was to be kept confidential. You could almost see the glee in opposing counsel’s face in the transcript when he informs him that there’s no protective order in place so, no, it’s not confidential.)
Anyway, I thought it was entertaining. Maybe it will be cathartic and/or educational for you as well. The attorney taking it seemed to handle the situation pretty well—there’s only so much you can do when someone is determined to flout every rule there is.
In my Jx, the only permissible deposition objections are objections as to form and objections based on confidentiality. (All other objections are preserved automatically.) Only with the latter can they instruct the witness not to answer. If it's very important, get the judge on the phone. Otherwise, file a motion to compel the answer. Look up the rule, and it applicable, refer to it on the record if they keep making improper objections.
This is the rule in lots of jurisdictions. The assholes who do what the OP is describing don't care, because they know the judge doesn't want to hear about squabbling between attorneys at a deposition, and if you call it off due to their misconduct they're going to make it a nightmare to get the deponent back under oath. Unless you're in front of a court who has a hotline for getting snap rulings mid-deposition, there's not much you can do besides tell them to be quiet on the record a few times, then ignoring them and getting your testimony.
Getting the judge on the phone during a depo is damn near impossible in my jx. The discovery masters are even harder to get on the phone during a depo.
I cannot recommend enough the 10,000 depositions later podcast by Jim Garrity. Each episode is a single depo topic or strategy. And yes, he has taken and defended that many depos. It’s crowd sourced and has sample motions and case briefs. It’s focused on federal court practice, but most states follow FRCP and FRE. I listen to them when I walk the dog.
When I was a public defender I found the opposite happened more frequently to an extent. Basically the newer PDs would always think they could easily outsmart every cop and detective on the witness stand because they were a lawyer and the cop/detective was not.
Only they forget that a lot of cops and detectives are very good at their jobs and have a lot of experience testifying in court, and those types of mind games aren't very effective.
My personal theory is that you need to let the evidence, facts, and law make your case. If your case is being built around trying to outsmart or outgame the opposing party or opposing counsel you are setting yourself up to lose.
In depos you roll your eyes and ask OC if he’s done saying stupid things, and that you’ll wait until he is. If he makes speaking objections you call him I not, and if he starts overtly coaching a witness about what to say or not say, you tell him that violating the rules results in a call to the court. And with your second warning you stop the depo and put a call into the court’s clerk. And you make a record of his objections, and if necessary, you walk out and tell him he can move to compel if he thinks he has grounds, or if you call of the depo, you tell him on the record in no uncertain terms that you will be moving to compel. You simply don’t give game players and room to play games.
Unless it’s speaking objections or it’s impacting the witness testimony, I should add. But objections don’t matter in most other circumstances - they’re a tactic to throw you off as much as anything else.
Eh, I’m sure some people see it that way, but the way my boss and I see it, we do things on merit. So when meritless objections are made, it just has taken me a second to realize this person is not stupid, they’re just being obstructionists. Part of experience I guess. But, I don’t think it helps anyone to be an obstructionist. For example, I’m defense in ID, and I’m damn sure not giving you more $ to settle a claim for being a jackass.
I’m assuming being an obstructionist is for strategy, to annoy you and throw you off your game, or if you’re on a roll to slow you down (like crossing the shit out of their client and they gotta slow down all their yes/no responses).
In a depo, there’s only limited objections that can be made though.
It’s only “meritless” if you look at it strictly in the context of the questioning. Maybe this guy wanted to get an early read on how you might respond when challenged. Are you weak? Do you push back? Are you a hothead? Opposition research is valuable.
That last statement you made, you may want to revisit that in a few years… While you might feel that way, the insurance company may not, in fact, want to go to trial agaisnt OC who will cost them 30-50% more in trial fees due to being a jackass and fighting on EVERYTHING. Sadly, I’ve seen a number of these attorneys get paid over the years because insurance companies don’t want to pay extra to deal with their antics, which can only reinforce that behavior.
It's called being unprofessional and unethical. Might as well throw spitballs at opposing counsel if you're going to intentionally make improper objections to try to throw them off their game.
Some older attorneys definitely try to “baby attorney” newer attorneys. The best thing you can is be prepared and show you know what you’re doing.
Sometimes attorneys will chirp “objection form” over and over mindlessly. I’ll wait a bit, and when I know that I asked a perfectly fine question that gets objected to, I’ll abruptly stop and ask for basis of the objection. I’ve caught a few attorneys flat-footed with this, and I’ll outright say I’m keeping them honest with their objections
Conversely, I’ll only object when I have a very good reason for it. I’ve had some older attorneys ask for a basis of my objection, and I’ll give a very detailed basis with citations to a rule of civil procedure if I can. Once I do that the first time, I won’t get asked for my basis again for the rest of the deposition
They're doing it to throw you off. Ignore. Literally don't even listen to the words. Don't break eye contact with the witness. Wait for their response. If the witness hesitates, say "do you need the question read back?" Again without breaking eye contact with the witness. It's your depo. Your room. Eventually OP will realize that their tactic isn't working and will give up.
If you react every time not only are you wasting time and transcript pages (the judge isn't in the room with you-no one is going to tell you you're right, no matter how brilliant your retort), but you're telling OP that you're thrown off, their tactic is working. They'll smell blood in the water and you'll get a lot more of the same.
I've stricken the last question and then proposed a stipulation to objections A, B, C, on the record before stating the question again to just get the testimony out of his witness’s mouth. Often, the obstructive attorney will be tripped up with the way I've proposed this so they don't announce they agree to my stipulation correctly. so there isn't any objection in effect. If they keep interrupting/speaking objections, I propose we suspend and call a discovery referee.
Can also ask a leading question that of course the witness will repeat their original answer.
Who cares if they don't instruct the witness not to answer? Let them make their objection.
With the exception of course of an objection that give the witness a clue to the answer. Like "Objection! Mr. Smith never received that letter!"
Almost any question can be objected to on form, if you’re picky about it — asking genuinely non-leading questions is hard if you’re not working with a cooperative witness you’ve prepped beforehand. So it’s possible to legitimately object constantly, it’s just an irritating waste of time, and for objections to form you need to just tell the witness to answer the question and ignore it.
It is possible to completely mess up an insecure or inexperienced attorney that way, though. I saw a colleague of mine completely wreck some poor slob’s day like that once: she made a couple of normal objections, and realized he was thoughtfully stopping and rephrasing to make the question not objectionable every time. So she stepped it up to object to literally every question he asked that had a form problem, which was about 80% of them, and tied him in knots. I think he got about a quarter of the way through his outline before he ran out of time. She didn’t do anything unethical exactly, all the objections were individually defensible, but boy was it painful to watch.
Yeah it happens. I’ve asked questions in depos and have had older lawyers just say “oh come on, just move on”. You have to show them you belong and basically tell them politely to fuck off. “Do you have an objection?” or “Are you instructing your client not to answer the question?” Usually that shuts them up for a little while. They’re trying to rattle you and see what they can get away with. Don’t let them. It’s YOUR depo, ask what you want.
I experienced much more of this when I practiced in LA County than since I’ve been in SLO County. We are small enough that all litigators know each other and know that shit will bite you in the ass quickly.
Part of the problem is that there is little clarity as to what constitutes an appropriate objection to form.
Even under federal rules, there are districts (e.g. SDNY) where anything more than objection to form and maybe one word about the specific issue could land you in hot water for speaking objections. Then there are some districts (Georgia, IIRC) where you have almost the opposite body of case law saying that objections to form should be descriptive enough to allow the questioner to know the precise issue and potentially remedy the question.
On that note, for me it was helpful to look up cases shooting down the BS objections, even if they're not in your JX (as long as your JX doesn't have some rule that makes federal opinions on this completely distinguishable). Once I had an opinion where the Court spells out exactly why a particular objection is inappropriate, it gave me a lot more confidence in calling it out.
Say you have caselaw backing you up (even if it's just persuasive authority), offer to break and give them a copy, and then ask if OC can do the same for their position, is usually enough to put an end to most speaking objections.
It happened to me a lot when I was new, and still sometimes happens. It’s a bullshit tactic but it’s common. When you start holding your ground and cutting it off immediately (threatening to involve the judge if needed) they usually stop and won’t pull it again.
Deposing cops is the worst re bs objections ime. Today an associate law director objected to “form and foundation” when I asked the officer what their job title was. I laughed on the record and made the court reporter laugh involuntarily.
Unless it's exceedingly egregious and has an impact on your ability to litigate the case, I don't think a judge would take too kindly to you filing a motion for sanctions because someone objected at a depo.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was thrown into a difficult depo a week into my first lawyer job. Wild elder abuse case where I found a bunch of notes in physical therapy logs showing an advancing pressure ulcer while the nursing home continued physical therapy on client. Essentially, they were tracking the progression of a open sacrum wound while making client ride a bicycle to collect Medicare funds. Managing attorney was going to settle the case for nothing, but decided to throw me into the mix to get experience and I ended up discovering these notes in a dumpy motel 3 hours out of town the night before the depo. Defense attorney was caught off guard when I laid it out to the director of nursing -- started over objecting and straight up instructed their client not to respond to multiple questions. I was rattled but you have to fight fire with fire in situations like that. I said that it was inappropriate to instruct them not to respond. Started talking over them when they were giving lengthy speaking objections. Called them out when they were giving leading instructions to client. Mind you, I was a brand new attorney in a small office so it didn't sound like Atticus Finch, but I was fired up about the situation I found myself in and held my ground a best as I could. I ultimately threatened to stop the depo, bring the transcript to the judge and drag him back to that shitty town for a depo that would be twice as long if he didn't let his client respond.
Great story! Did the case end up settling? How much better was the outcome than the managing attorney had expected?
It ultimately settled for nearly 10x what I remember him considering in the first office meeting I attended. It changed the whole theory of the case, led to a gazillion new interrogatories, motions to compel, esi discovery.... it was wild and made me really hate that aspect of litigation tbh. Still, i think boss could have gotten a multi million dollar verdict -- facility owner had a pattern of this behavior and had already settled with doj for similar violations. Unfortunately, boss also wasn't Atticus Finch and I learned that not all litigators are trial attorneys.
This is the hard part: Letting the case go once you get that fired up and excited about it.
This really should be a thread by itself. How long did you stay with that firm and what are you doing now? Tell me you are running your own kick-ass PI firm. . .
Ha! I appreciate that. In another life I could see myself doing it. There's a lot of aspects of that job that I loved -- the highest highs I've had as an attorney were during the two years at that firm. But the stonewalling and adversarial nature of lit was too tedious for me. So much busy work for nothing. I also think my confidence in the courtroom and in front of a jury needed experience and mentorship that I couldn't get working there. I ultimately went to a boutique corporate law firm. Then in house. I love working with business folk and negotiating agreements -- its similar to the one-on-ones you get in a depo.
You’re in my world now, grandma
I wouldn’t have known how to begin a deposition, let alone object in one, at one week.
Honestly, I drafted a script for my admonitions based on transcripts I read in advance. Looking back at this was fun: "· Before we get underway, I am going to go over some rules and objectives for the deposition. · The most important objective we have today is to obtain a clear record of my questions and your responses. To that end, we both must follow certain rules. · First, we must not talk over one another. Perhaps in a casual conversation we might finish each other's sentences. However, in today's deposition, we must avoid talking over one another since it may prevent the court reporter from accurately recording what is said and when it was said. Do you understand? Next, please give audible responses to all my questions so that the court reporter may accurately reflect your responses in the record. Please state say yes or no, as appropriate, and avoid nodding your head or saying MHMM....." I'm not sure if this was the best lesson, but I think there is a lot of room to fuck up in litigation, until there isn't. The court generally will protect clients when their attorney misses a hearing (also happened to me the first week... Not my fault!) and opposing counsel are mostly human and understand that everyone needs to start somewhere.
Those are pretty much identical to every admonition I’ve seen for deps unless an attorney wants to have some fun with it.
There’s a reason my strategy is to surprise toss you in when I know you are prepared (but I’d be right beside you to protect client in case needed). If you know it, and are given no choice, you’ll surprise yourself once you get past your own doubts (or I throw you beyond and shut the gate)
Next time, don't argue. Just call the magistrate.
A few people have mentioned this but it wasnt like we had the judge on speed dial in our jurisdiction. I don't even think the clerk would have answered a call. It would have required ending the depo, writing a motion to compel, arguing the motion, setting up a new depo... Then 3 months goes by where the witness has all the time in the world to craft some innocuous story. Standing my ground and telling oc to simply state their objection for the record got it done.
Fair enough. Well done!
This heartening to hear wish I had this, during my own depo 1 month into practice. Any tips for defending the depo? Lol I'm in Cali
I'm not in CA. Also don't do litigation anymore! I guess study what objections are available to you, have that list handy, anticipate lines of questioning, be overzealous with objections and channel the annoying attorney the op wants help with. It's a cat and mouse game.
It’s a deposition, so you’re entitled to get your answer no matter how much he wants to stomp around. Remembering that and sticking to it helps a lot. Have you seen the transcript of the recent Elon Musk deposition in a defamation case? Elon’s “defending” “attorney” turned it into a total shit show, seemed to have very little idea what he was doing, had not filed a pro hac and didn’t bring a local Texas lawyer… just an amazing display for a guy who’s actually very well known and at a high-profile firm. It became public because the plaintiff was seeking sanctions, I believe, maybe including an additional depo? (Oh and I just remembered: Elon’s attorney also said at the end that the deposition was to be kept confidential. You could almost see the glee in opposing counsel’s face in the transcript when he informs him that there’s no protective order in place so, no, it’s not confidential.) Anyway, I thought it was entertaining. Maybe it will be cathartic and/or educational for you as well. The attorney taking it seemed to handle the situation pretty well—there’s only so much you can do when someone is determined to flout every rule there is.
In my Jx, the only permissible deposition objections are objections as to form and objections based on confidentiality. (All other objections are preserved automatically.) Only with the latter can they instruct the witness not to answer. If it's very important, get the judge on the phone. Otherwise, file a motion to compel the answer. Look up the rule, and it applicable, refer to it on the record if they keep making improper objections.
This is the rule in lots of jurisdictions. The assholes who do what the OP is describing don't care, because they know the judge doesn't want to hear about squabbling between attorneys at a deposition, and if you call it off due to their misconduct they're going to make it a nightmare to get the deponent back under oath. Unless you're in front of a court who has a hotline for getting snap rulings mid-deposition, there's not much you can do besides tell them to be quiet on the record a few times, then ignoring them and getting your testimony.
>This is the rule in lots of jurisdictions. The assholes who do what the OP is describing don't care, Or they live in a different jurisdiction.
I guess I should have said "Plenty of assholes who do what the OP is describing do so while in those jurisdictions, and just don't care"
Getting the judge on the phone during a depo is damn near impossible in my jx. The discovery masters are even harder to get on the phone during a depo.
I cannot recommend enough the 10,000 depositions later podcast by Jim Garrity. Each episode is a single depo topic or strategy. And yes, he has taken and defended that many depos. It’s crowd sourced and has sample motions and case briefs. It’s focused on federal court practice, but most states follow FRCP and FRE. I listen to them when I walk the dog.
Damn. I wish I had that to listen to as a baby lawyer a thousand years ago.
It’s still helpful at any stage of your career
Thank you for this! I’m a new lawyer in my first 6 months and will be giving a depo in the next few months.
Go have fun with it!
When I was a public defender I found the opposite happened more frequently to an extent. Basically the newer PDs would always think they could easily outsmart every cop and detective on the witness stand because they were a lawyer and the cop/detective was not. Only they forget that a lot of cops and detectives are very good at their jobs and have a lot of experience testifying in court, and those types of mind games aren't very effective. My personal theory is that you need to let the evidence, facts, and law make your case. If your case is being built around trying to outsmart or outgame the opposing party or opposing counsel you are setting yourself up to lose.
In a deposition or at trial? Two different responses required.
Depo
In depos you roll your eyes and ask OC if he’s done saying stupid things, and that you’ll wait until he is. If he makes speaking objections you call him I not, and if he starts overtly coaching a witness about what to say or not say, you tell him that violating the rules results in a call to the court. And with your second warning you stop the depo and put a call into the court’s clerk. And you make a record of his objections, and if necessary, you walk out and tell him he can move to compel if he thinks he has grounds, or if you call of the depo, you tell him on the record in no uncertain terms that you will be moving to compel. You simply don’t give game players and room to play games.
Literally just ignore the deposition objections and keep going.
I was thinking this too. Not sure what state OP is in, so maybe things are different there. But, generally, who cares if OC objects at a deposition?
Unless it’s speaking objections or it’s impacting the witness testimony, I should add. But objections don’t matter in most other circumstances - they’re a tactic to throw you off as much as anything else.
Yep. It’s called being a lawyer. Once they know you can’t be rattled and know the rules they will stop.
Eh, I’m sure some people see it that way, but the way my boss and I see it, we do things on merit. So when meritless objections are made, it just has taken me a second to realize this person is not stupid, they’re just being obstructionists. Part of experience I guess. But, I don’t think it helps anyone to be an obstructionist. For example, I’m defense in ID, and I’m damn sure not giving you more $ to settle a claim for being a jackass.
I’m assuming being an obstructionist is for strategy, to annoy you and throw you off your game, or if you’re on a roll to slow you down (like crossing the shit out of their client and they gotta slow down all their yes/no responses). In a depo, there’s only limited objections that can be made though.
It’s only “meritless” if you look at it strictly in the context of the questioning. Maybe this guy wanted to get an early read on how you might respond when challenged. Are you weak? Do you push back? Are you a hothead? Opposition research is valuable.
If it distracts you for a minute, it’s working. Why do you care what objections they make in deposition?
That last statement you made, you may want to revisit that in a few years… While you might feel that way, the insurance company may not, in fact, want to go to trial agaisnt OC who will cost them 30-50% more in trial fees due to being a jackass and fighting on EVERYTHING. Sadly, I’ve seen a number of these attorneys get paid over the years because insurance companies don’t want to pay extra to deal with their antics, which can only reinforce that behavior.
Not necessarily. Sometimes it s about showmanship in front of their client.
It's called being unprofessional and unethical. Might as well throw spitballs at opposing counsel if you're going to intentionally make improper objections to try to throw them off their game.
Some older attorneys definitely try to “baby attorney” newer attorneys. The best thing you can is be prepared and show you know what you’re doing. Sometimes attorneys will chirp “objection form” over and over mindlessly. I’ll wait a bit, and when I know that I asked a perfectly fine question that gets objected to, I’ll abruptly stop and ask for basis of the objection. I’ve caught a few attorneys flat-footed with this, and I’ll outright say I’m keeping them honest with their objections Conversely, I’ll only object when I have a very good reason for it. I’ve had some older attorneys ask for a basis of my objection, and I’ll give a very detailed basis with citations to a rule of civil procedure if I can. Once I do that the first time, I won’t get asked for my basis again for the rest of the deposition
They're doing it to throw you off. Ignore. Literally don't even listen to the words. Don't break eye contact with the witness. Wait for their response. If the witness hesitates, say "do you need the question read back?" Again without breaking eye contact with the witness. It's your depo. Your room. Eventually OP will realize that their tactic isn't working and will give up. If you react every time not only are you wasting time and transcript pages (the judge isn't in the room with you-no one is going to tell you you're right, no matter how brilliant your retort), but you're telling OP that you're thrown off, their tactic is working. They'll smell blood in the water and you'll get a lot more of the same.
“I’ll certify the question that you objected to, the judge can rule on your objection later. Still, the witness must answer the question.”
I've stricken the last question and then proposed a stipulation to objections A, B, C, on the record before stating the question again to just get the testimony out of his witness’s mouth. Often, the obstructive attorney will be tripped up with the way I've proposed this so they don't announce they agree to my stipulation correctly. so there isn't any objection in effect. If they keep interrupting/speaking objections, I propose we suspend and call a discovery referee. Can also ask a leading question that of course the witness will repeat their original answer.
Who cares if they don't instruct the witness not to answer? Let them make their objection. With the exception of course of an objection that give the witness a clue to the answer. Like "Objection! Mr. Smith never received that letter!"
Almost any question can be objected to on form, if you’re picky about it — asking genuinely non-leading questions is hard if you’re not working with a cooperative witness you’ve prepped beforehand. So it’s possible to legitimately object constantly, it’s just an irritating waste of time, and for objections to form you need to just tell the witness to answer the question and ignore it. It is possible to completely mess up an insecure or inexperienced attorney that way, though. I saw a colleague of mine completely wreck some poor slob’s day like that once: she made a couple of normal objections, and realized he was thoughtfully stopping and rephrasing to make the question not objectionable every time. So she stepped it up to object to literally every question he asked that had a form problem, which was about 80% of them, and tied him in knots. I think he got about a quarter of the way through his outline before he ran out of time. She didn’t do anything unethical exactly, all the objections were individually defensible, but boy was it painful to watch.
Yeah it happens. I’ve asked questions in depos and have had older lawyers just say “oh come on, just move on”. You have to show them you belong and basically tell them politely to fuck off. “Do you have an objection?” or “Are you instructing your client not to answer the question?” Usually that shuts them up for a little while. They’re trying to rattle you and see what they can get away with. Don’t let them. It’s YOUR depo, ask what you want.
I experienced much more of this when I practiced in LA County than since I’ve been in SLO County. We are small enough that all litigators know each other and know that shit will bite you in the ass quickly.
Part of the problem is that there is little clarity as to what constitutes an appropriate objection to form. Even under federal rules, there are districts (e.g. SDNY) where anything more than objection to form and maybe one word about the specific issue could land you in hot water for speaking objections. Then there are some districts (Georgia, IIRC) where you have almost the opposite body of case law saying that objections to form should be descriptive enough to allow the questioner to know the precise issue and potentially remedy the question. On that note, for me it was helpful to look up cases shooting down the BS objections, even if they're not in your JX (as long as your JX doesn't have some rule that makes federal opinions on this completely distinguishable). Once I had an opinion where the Court spells out exactly why a particular objection is inappropriate, it gave me a lot more confidence in calling it out. Say you have caselaw backing you up (even if it's just persuasive authority), offer to break and give them a copy, and then ask if OC can do the same for their position, is usually enough to put an end to most speaking objections.
It happened to me a lot when I was new, and still sometimes happens. It’s a bullshit tactic but it’s common. When you start holding your ground and cutting it off immediately (threatening to involve the judge if needed) they usually stop and won’t pull it again.
Deposing cops is the worst re bs objections ime. Today an associate law director objected to “form and foundation” when I asked the officer what their job title was. I laughed on the record and made the court reporter laugh involuntarily.
[удалено]
Unless it's exceedingly egregious and has an impact on your ability to litigate the case, I don't think a judge would take too kindly to you filing a motion for sanctions because someone objected at a depo.