Our depo case digest episodes present a fast roundup of new deposition-related rulings nationwide. Today: (1) Two new rulings on relevance as a basis to instruct a witness not to answer a question, or to halt the deposition for purposes of seeking a protective order; (2) A ruling about a clever way to assure testimony is admissible when you use leading questions in deposing a witness considered &#34;hostile&#34; under rules of evidence; and (3) A case on excluding parties from depositions when their presence may traumatize deponents.All cases mentioned in this episode are cited in the show notes, with helpful parentheticals. Can&#39;t see all the cases? Not all podcast sites allow lengthy show notes. Click through to our home page, where the full notes are always accessible. Thanks for listening!SHOW NOTES:Delgado v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al., No. 19-CV-11764 (AT) (KHP), 2024 WL 3219809, (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024) (order denying pro se plaintiff’s motion to compel certain answers that non-party deponent declined to answer following instruction by counsel based on relevance)Keplar v. Google, LLC, 346 F.R.D. 41, 51 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8 2024) (“if counsel’s questions go so far beyond the realm of possible revenue relevance where the deposition is being conducted in an abusive manner, i.e., in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses or oppresses the deponent or party, then it would be permissive to instruct the deponent not to answer and move for a protective order&#34;)Jenkins v. Miller, No. 2:12-CV-184, 2024 WL 3220349, at *2 (D. Vt. Jan. 2, 2024) While the Court cannot issue a general a ruling at this time, it acknowledges that Miller will likely be an important witness for all parties. The Court will therefore make itself available on January 18, 2024, the date on which the deposition is scheduled to take place, to issue rulings as necessary. Plaintiff&#39;s motion for leave to ask leading questions (ECF No. 745) is therefore denied at this time without prejudice, and may be renewed at the time of the deposition and/or thereafter as necessary.Austin v. Fordham University, et al, No. 23 CIV. 4696 (JLR) (GS), 2024 WL 3161854, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2024) (“The Court grants Austin&#39;s motion for a protective order preventing Sweeney from attending Austin&#39;s deposition in person. However, Sweeney may be present in the same location where the deposition is taken (but in a different office) and permitted to see and hear the deposition in real time via a one-way remote video feed. Sweeney&#39;s counsel may consult with his client during normal breaks in the testimony and may also leave the deposition room when he deems it necessary to consult with his client during the deposition”)Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41, 105 S. Ct. 460, 463, 83 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1984) (“Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district court&#39;s inherent authority to manage the course of trials. See generally Fed.Rule Evid. 103(c).”)Fed.R.Evid. 611(c) (rule allowing the use of leading questions during what would otherwise be direct examination upon a showing the witness meets the test of hostility)Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (general discovery rule on allowing discovery &#34;regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant...&#34;) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (rule on grounds for protective orders)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)(A) (rule on terminating depositions for purposes of seeking protective orders)

Podurama

Home

Trending

Personal

Your Podcasts

New Episodes

My Files

Favourite Episodes

Tags (Folders)

Recently Played

Bookmarks

Followed Playlists

Episode 141 - Depo Case Digest for the Week of July 5, 2024

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

AI Chapters

AI Insights

Reviews