#Im pro per trial#

Here is a deposition from another case where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had provided inaccurate information about the plaintiff to various third parties. To the extent you think I'm harassing the witness, you can stop the deposition and bring a motion for a protective order.ĬOUNSEL: I appreciate you giving me my options. Now, what your option is is to make the objection on the basis it's been asked and answered. I'm asking what he has in his mind that is that agreement with. He says in September 2017 and I agreed that would issue set distributions. Now, he signed a declaration under penalty of perjury. SUGDEN: Let me finish - it's much different than asking for a legal justification. You'll note I'm asking if he has, in his mind, something that constitutes an agreement. That stands for the proposition that you can't ask someone to get - give the legal justification for something. You're asking him to identify a document that constitutes an agreement.ĬOUNSEL: No, that is precisely what you're doing, so I'm asking where you're going with this. You can make the objection and -ĬOUNSEL: Okay, then I'm going to advise my client not to answer this question because you're getting into Rifkind contentions. SUGDEN: Counsel, your job here is to make objections. Calls for a contention, asked and answered.Ĭounsel, where are we going with this? I'm asking you because at some point we're going to shut it down. Q Do you have, in your mind, some kind of writing where you're agreeing to $40,000 per month?ĬOUNSEL: Objection.

It seemed like some fairly straightforward Q&A. But for now, I wanted to drill down what the deponent believed constituted this supposed agreement. The fact that he may have sent a contemporaneous email to his wife would be inquired into later. I was trying to focus the deponent on identifying what specific writings he believed constituted this alleged agreement with his business partners. Also my wife, during that time, I texted her because we were discussing budgets and guaranteed payments. This communication in September 2017 what type of communication was it?Ī We used Slack message during that time, and I think there were some texts back and forth. Q Do you recall what communications you were having when this agreement was made in other words, was it by text. I wanted to determine the factual basis for the plaintiff's belief that this agreement existed: The plaintiff alleged-among other things-that he and his business partners agreed that the business would issue $40,000 distributions to its members every month. Here is an example from a recent deposition. Counsel defending depositions will often lodge Rifkind objections to justify an instruction that the deponent not answer a question. One case California litigators must have in their arsenal is Rifkind v.

#Im pro per trial#

And if not, the transcript becomes the clearest evidence for the trial court to grant a motion to compel (and potentially issue sanctions). Being able to plainly state on the record, with precision but not derision, why an opponent's objection or instruction not to answer a question violates the law can resolve most disputes. An effective and important strategy is to know-with absolute accuracy-the rules and cases that govern depositions. There are a number of methods to neutralize opposing counsel who fall into this unruly category. Bickering is the rule while playing actual tennis becomes the exception. No, it was in!' back and forth ad nauseum. It is tennis between two petulant, middle-aged-out-of-shape-adults screaming 'It was out!. It is actually less like basketball and more like tennis. Grown-up attorneys will roll their eyes, huff, puff, and throw silly little temper tantrums.

And if the teams cannot self-regulate themselves, 'aggressive' defense soon means broken noses and bruised elbows.ĭepositions are like the nerd version of pickup basketball. Without a judge regulating the proceedings, quarrels about what questions are or are not objectionable can spiral downward with maturity and poise being among the dispute's first casualties. No one gets called for three seconds in the key. The result? There is invariably more traveling. There is no referee in pickup basketball.