In this episode, Jim Garrity highlights three brand new deposition-related court rulings. The first presents the question of whether witnesses and their counsel can be prohibited from discussing the witnesses&#39; testimony during recesses. The second addresses the propriety of asking foundational questions of privilege-bearing deponents to determine if the assertion of privilege is legitimate; the opinion explains what &#34;foundational&#34; questions are, gives examples, and details the procedure for deposing such witnesses and then presenting the issue to a court for decision. The third case in the spotlight highlights an avoidable problem when a lawyer seeks to depose an individual who has already testified in a 30(b)(6) capacity. Citations to the cases appear in today&#39;s show notes. Thanks for listening.SHOW NOTESVillareal v. Texas, Case No. 24-557, __ US __ (Apr. 7, 2025) agreeing to review ruling denying criminal defendant’s request to confer about his testimony with his counsel during overnight breaks) petition for writ of certiorari at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/331695/20241113121417971_cert%20petition%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/331695/20241113121417971_cert%20petition%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf</a>; Brief in Opposition at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf</a>; Reply Brief at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/351275/20250305130135816_cert%20reply%2024-557%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/351275/20250305130135816_cert%20reply%2024-557%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf</a>Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00431, 2025 WL 1006372 (M. D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2025) (outlining the procedure for questioning witnesses claiming privilege, and holding that foundational questions about the allegedly privileged communications must be allowed to determine whether a privilege exists)In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, Case Number 22–MD–03047–YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 1009362 (N. D. Calif. Apr. 4, 2025) (denying request for deposition of a witness in an individual capacity, on basis that deposing party should have combined such a deposition with the 30(b)(6) deposition of the same person)

Podurama

Home

Trending

Personal

Your Podcasts

New Episodes

My Files

Favourite Episodes

Tags (Folders)

Recently Played

Bookmarks

Followed Playlists

Episode 153 - Deposition Case Roundup for the Week of April 2025

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

AI Chapters

AI Insights

Reviews