Category Archives: Discovery
Objections should be kept to a minimum. The Rules contemplate that
objections should be concise and afford the examiner the opportunity to cure the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (noting that “objection[s] must be stated concisely”); id., Advisory
Committee Notes (1993 Amendments) (noting that “[d]epositions frequently have been unduly prolonged . . . By lengthy objections and colloquy” and that objections “ordinarily should be limited to those . . . grounds that might be immediately obviated, removed, or cured, such as to
the form of a question”). Rule 30(c)(2) provides:
Objections. An objection at the time of the examination—whether
to evidence, to a party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).
The Notes to the Advisory Committee for the Amendments of 1993 state that “[w]hile objections
may, under the revised rule, be made during a deposition, they ordinarily should be limited to
those that under Rule 32(d)(3) might be waived if not made at that time, i.e., objections on
grounds that might be immediately obviated, removed, or cured, such as to the form of a question or the responsiveness of an answer.” Rule 32(d)(3)(A) & (B) state specifically which objections must be made or waived:
(A) Objection to Competence, Relevance, or Materiality. An
objection to a deponent’s competence—or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony—is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.
(B) Objection to an Error or Irregularity. An objection to an error
or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if:
(i) it relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a
question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party’s conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and
(ii) it is not timely made during the deposition. [Emphasis Added].
The Rules should be abided by during the course of the deposition.
Form objections. While unspecified “form” objections are certainly concise, they
do nothing to alert the examiner to a question’s alleged defect. Because they lack specificity, “
form” objections do not allow the examiner to immediately cure the objection.
Permissible objections. If an objection could have been obviated at the time of
the deposition and it is not made, it is deemed waived. The only objection you should make are “insufficient foundation”, “compound”, “argumentative”, “asked and answered,” and “work
product privilege” or “attorney client privilege.” All other objections are available and can be
raised at a later time.
Below is a list of potentially impermissible objections (check your jurisdiction):
1. Speaking Objections. Speaking objections are not allowed and can draw
sanctions. Your objection needs to be short and concise.
2. No right to consultation. A witness has no constitutional right to consultation
while testifying. Perry v Leake, 488 US 272 (1989).
3. Recesses. It has been held a deponent has no right to consultation during
depositions and during recesses. Hall v Clifton Precision, 150 F.D.R. 525 (E.D. Penn. 1993).
4. Communications during recesses. There is no attorney client or work product
privilege for discussion between attorney and deponent during recesses. You can ask what they
talked about. Id.
5. Questions by Defending Counsel. An attorney cannot state on the record their
interpretation of a question asked. Hall, supra.
6. If you know or if you understand is a speaking objection (coaching). Suggestions such as
“if you know” or “if you understand” are raw unmitigated coaching and never appropriate.
Serrano v Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2012 WL 20871 *4. (Kansas)
7. Calls for speculation. Objections to “speculation” are not form. It’s also
coaching. Serrano, supra.
8. Vague Objection. Saying a question is “vague” is improper speaking objection.
Serrano, supra. Likewise, a lawyer cannot object saying he/she didn’t understand the question.
9. Multiple objections. Rambo-like multiple objections prohibited. In Re
Stratosphere, 182 F.R.D. 614 (D. Nev. 1998).
10. Excessive number of objections. Excessive number of objections is
sanctionable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d), Committee Notes 1993.
There is an assault on our privacy. We need look no further than headlines involving Russian hacking of our government and political institutions such as story reported by The NY Times today. The assault on our client’s privacy is also underway as part of the civil discovery process. Attorneys now seek to rummage through a client’s social media accounts and demand usernames and passwords to accomplish this invasion of privacy without any factual basis or good cause.
Fishing expeditions are not allowed. Here is the objection I use:
Objection, this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Ind. T.R. 26(B)(1). Further, this request is non-specific and calls for a general fishing expedition which is prohibited under Indiana law in violation of the reasonable particularity requirement of Ind. T.R. 34(B). See Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 526 at 529-531(Ind. 1991). The simple fact that a claimant has had social communications is not necessarily probative of the issues in this case. See Rozell v Ross-Holst,2006 WL 163143 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2006). There is no general right to have access to an entire Facebook account and such a request is no different than requesting the right to search through a party’s entire house, office, or wherever making the request a “fishing expedition”. See also, McCann v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of New York , 78 A.D.2d 1524 (N.Y. A.D. 2010)(Defendant “failed to establish a factual predicate and essentially sought permission to conduct a fishing expedition into plaintiff’s Facebook account based on the mere hope of finding relevant evidence which is not allowed); Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, No. 10-10413, (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012)(Defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that Plaintiff has limited from public view and engage in the proverbial fishing expedition, in the hope of finding something on a Facebook account.).
Social media may be discoverable “specifically “, but certainly should not be invaded “generally”. Privacy matters to us all and must be honored even in this day of pervasive electronic communications and connections.