- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 147 Views
- Judge Michael Villani dismissed murder charges against a woman accused of driving over her boyfriend and killing him. [RJ]
- Small businesses grapple with employee vaccination. [TNI]
- If you didn’t read these Northern District of Illinois deposition rules shared in the comments the other day, you should check them out.
- It’s finally time for Monday Night Football in Las Vegas. [KTNV]
The one thing I don't like in the deposition rules is when there are multiple objections to a question. Limiting the defending attorney to "objection to form" means you're requiring them to not specify why they're objecting. To me, this invites every defending attorney to offer a canned "objection to form" after every question and therefore kicking the can down the road. I think if there's a compound question that is argumentative and calls for a legal conclusion then you should be able to make that clear on the record.
Change my mind.
the questioning attorney can ask for a follow-up of the entire world of objections. so the canned objection to form can be fought, if needed.
That's right. I was in a contested deposition with a local overrated blowhard attorney, and he quite properly occasionally probed my "objection as to form" for a bit and then, upon realizing I ain't full of shit, he stopped.
Thank you to the original poster for the ND Ill piece.
But that doesn't help speed up the process. If anything it allows the defending attorney to engage in even more gamesmanship. Object to form on everything of substance and it's on the questioning attorney to stop their flow of questioning to get the specifics on the record or let the defending attorney get away with a vague catch-all objection.
Even if the defending attorney doesn't do it all the time, it can be used for the really hard hitting questions as an "oh crap" objection where you want to preserve all objections you can't think of at the time.
Yeah, but who says it was supposed to speed up the process. If you don't want the witness coached during the depo, you leave it as a form objection and go right on ahead. You get better info from the deponent, and it's on you to know if your question was good or not.
Those rules don't outline anything new. If you are an attorney experienced in depositions, you know already know speaking objections are prohibited, you can't object on relevance other than to protect privilege or court order, the deposing attorney can ask for clarification, etc. Nothing outlined should, in theory, contribute to longer depositions. In fact, most of the rules refer back to the civil procedure rules, so it shouldn't be new information for anyone. That said, maybe having the rules laid out as clearly as they are would help out younger attorneys so they can better hit the ground running.
Younger attorneys are far from the problem. Older attorneys are more of an issue from what I've seen. Yelling, talking objections, directing clients not to answer questions, etc. Then when you go before the discovery commissioner, they allow it. It's insane. Just blatant disregard for discovery rules. And most clients don't have the money to finance an appeal so they're f-ed.
Maybe the EJDC needs to schedule a CLE for the judges and hearing masters on discovery rules.
They should amend Rule 30 to eliminate most objections by stating in the rule that all objections are automatically preserved except for privilege.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I've practiced for many years, and have heard thousands of objections at depositions.
But it is extremely rare that I have seen anyone file a motion to resolve some of those matters.
Ordinarily someone objects, and if no privilege is invoked they are permitted to respond with the objection preserved for the record. But I rarely subsequently see anyone make some big issues before a judge, at pre-trial proceedings, or a motion in limine, or anything else.
But based on this discussion on this blog, other people's experience must be dramatically different than mine, and this, anecdotally speaking, must be far more frequent than I perceive it as being.
But for me, far more than 99% of the time when someone objects, the deponent answers, and we never hear about it again.
The only specific two times I recall that it was an issue is when the attorney instructed the deponent not to answer on the grounds of privilege, and a dispute was later brought to the judge's attention as to whether or not any legitimate privilege applied.
I loved it when you could call the Discovery Commissioner and they would actually get on the line and put an end to the monkey business.
Bonnie Bulla usually started it.
they still do
I am sick and tired of the lack of professional courtesy with regard to the scheduling of depositions. F you if you can't call me or my secretary and ask for available dates. F you if you don't respond to my inquiry re dates for deposition and then complain when I unilaterally notice the deposition. F you if you can't send out a notice of deposition with the proper 15 day notice.
We stopped asking for dates a long time ago. We just notice the depo and send a letter saying let us know by X date of that doesn’t work and provide dates and times that do work. When you ask for depo dates it takes 2 months to set a depo, especially if there is more than one party. When dealing with insurance defense counsel it is even worse.
Everyone, take a breath. For me, I like the direct language of the Ill deposition rules. The key question, does the same court enforce these rules via sanctions? In our case, the bench needs to do a better job of policing. (I hear family court is much worse).