Deposition question

[sfosmith]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Question about conducting depositions under the federal rules:

A deposition of a non party is scheduled by subpoena. Counsel for the party to the case (defendant) is entitled to notification and attendance. The examination of non party witness begins with non party counsel present.

Is counsel for the party, whose witness is not being deposed, allowed to enter objections to the examiner's questions of the non party? And if so, are these rights to object limited in scope. Same question as regards the right of the party's counsel to cross examine at the conclusion of the session.

 

[tranquility]

Is counsel for the party, whose witness is not being deposed, allowed to enter objections to the examiner's questions of the non party?

Sure. What is it you hope to accomplish with the "objection"?

Same question as regards the right of the party's counsel to cross examine at the conclusion of the session.

Sure again.

See:
Rule 30. Depositions by Oral Examination | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[startedone]

Is counsel for the party, whose witness is not being deposed, allowed to enter objections to the examiner's questions of the non party? And if so, are these rights to object limited in scope. Same question as regards the right of the party's counsel to cross examine at the conclusion of the session.

Its a lawyerfest .. all lawyers are welcome..plaintiff's, defendant's, and deponent's.

All can object for whatever reason they want. Not that their objections are proper (and almost anything can be asked,,almost anything). Most objections are "already answered/already asked".

Right to cross? I would not think so. Not unless both parties agree. Who is paying for the dep, right?


Generally, you don't depose your own witnesses ... but if it is a fishing expedition I guess I can see your viewpoint.

 

[sfosmith]

Right to cross? I would not think so. Not unless both parties agree. Who is paying for the dep, right?[/QUOTE

I, plaintiff, am paying for the deposition of the non party. I must notify counsel to the party who has the right to attend.
Is there support for the opinion that counsel for the party has,

1 Right to object to question regarding her client (defendant)
2 Right to cross examine

Or is a matter of "It's my deposition and now, counsel, I'm now shutting off the your telephone appearance, click"

 

[tranquility]

With such a non-sequiter reply, I decided to look up the poster.

Posting hx.

 

[sfosmith]

Posting hx.

If your abreviation means hoax, you are quite wrong. I am litigating and currently in discovery with extensive scheduling of depositions.
My comment has to do with following up on the last comment seeking support or authorities for the poster's opinion. The problem with this forum is that many reply with unsupported opinions out of thin air.
Again, if you are suggesting that my questions are nothing more than a hoax, you are quite wrong. I am pro se in a knock-down-drag-out fight and doing quite well, currently engaged in extensive deposition examinations.

 

[tranquility]

Hx is forum slang for posting history. Anyone who answers would be well served to look at your other threads first.

 

[startedone]

Right to cross? I would not think so. Not unless both parties agree. Who is paying for the dep, right?[/QUOTE

I, plaintiff, am paying for the deposition of the non party. I must notify counsel to the party who has the right to attend.
Is there support for the opinion that counsel for the party has,

1 Right to object to question regarding her client (defendant)
2 Right to cross examine

1) yes they can object , have the judge's phone # ready (some will rule on an objection over the phone) - or some let the objection unruled upon answer and deal with it later.

2) the defendant's attorney does not have the right to cross examine on your dime. A deposition is a one way street. And why would they want to cross and get more statements on the record?

 

[sfosmith]

Hx is forum slang for posting history. Anyone who answers would be well served to look at your other threads first.

I see you have participated in two of them. You offer opinions without support. Take my question about cross examination rights in this thread. Instead of questioning the motives of the examiner as you did below, you could have cited Fed Rule 30 Depositions by Oral Examination as any lawyer with experience in depositions would do. See, I had to research it myself for the answer.

Are you the Room Monitor here?

 

[sfosmith]

1) yes they can object , have the judge's phone # ready (some will rule on an objection over the phone) - or some let the objection unruled upon answer and deal with it later.

2) the defendant's attorney does not have the right to cross examine on your dime. A deposition is a one way street. And why would they want to cross and get more statements on the record?
__________________

Thank You. This gets a little confusing with the non party deponent's attorney, the defendant's attorney who must be notified and has a right to attend, has right to object to questions involving defendant , but has no right to cross examine.

 

[startedone]

Thank You. This gets a little confusing with the non party deponent's attorney, the defendant's attorney who must be notified and has a right to attend, has right to object to questions involving defendant , but has no right to cross examine.

Just another ambulance chaser in the room...if they get too annoying, just say "do you wish me to stop so I can call the judge and get clarification of your conduct's reasonableness from the judge?" That usually shuts them up.

 

[Ohiogal]

Just another ambulance chaser in the room...if they get too annoying, just say "do you wish me to stop so I can call the judge and get clarification of your conduct's reasonableness from the judge?" That usually shuts them up.

Really? Then you know nothing about attorneys. It is very possible that the judge will not be available. It is also dangerous for a pro se litigant to threaten someone without having anything to back it up as to why the conduct is unethical or unreasonable. That could get the pro se litigant SANCTIONED.

 

[tranquility]

I see you have participated in two of them. You offer opinions without support. Take my question about cross examination rights in this thread. Instead of questioning the motives of the examiner as you did below, you could have cited Fed Rule 30 Depositions by Oral Examination as any lawyer with experience in depositions would do. See, I had to research it myself for the answer.

Are you the Room Monitor here?

I'm not going to play with you. But, note who provided the FRCP reference for you earlier. Is English your first language?