stevemowry
Junior Member
I am a US citizen retired in Thailand that is also a plaintiff in civil litigation in Rhode Island District Court. I was identified as a witness for the plaintiffs; however, the attorneys could not concur on my deposition terms and conditions in Thailand. So the defense attorneys filed a motion to compel. The judge granted the defense’s motion to compel and ordered the following.
a. On or before August 5, 2016, Plaintiff is ordered to submit to being deposed in this case pursuant to the requirements set forth below.
.
.
.
f. Plaintiff is specifically ordered to give his solemn oath or affirmation and to testify truthfully as if the oath or affirmation had been administered by the officer in his presence.
I had informed my attorney that compulsory depositions are prohibited in Thailand and that I was a willing and cooperative witness. I proposed service of notice by registered mail with return receipt; however, the motion to compel was granted and the deposition has been ordered.
Below is an excerpt from the US State Department website.
“Thailand is not a party to the Hague Evidence Convention. Voluntary depositions may be conducted in Thailand regardless of the nationality of the witness, provided no compulsion is used. Oral depositions or depositions on written questions may be taken by U.S. consular officers or by private attorneys from the United States or Thailand at the U.S. Embassy or at another location such as a hotel or office, either on notice or pursuant to a commission.”
Below is an except from USA passport website.
“Depositions of willing witnesses may be conducted in Thailand regardless of the nationality of the witness. The procedure does not vary in civil, administrative or criminal cases. Depositions may take place on U.S. consular premises or at other locations such as offices or hotels. The witnesses may refuse to take an oath or refrain from answering any or all questions. No compulsory measure, either direct or indirect is allowed.”
I suspect that the compulsion is an issue. If I was retired in Alaska for example, the order would look the same as for Thailand. It seems that the court has ignored Thai law and/or regulation along with reasonable diplomacy.
So my concern is that the deposition will be invalid and could be challenged at trial or on appeal. My attorney asked what can Thailand do to the USA? He also speculated that if I object to a compulsory deposition, then the judge will dismiss the case.
Can anyone shed some light on this situation?
a. On or before August 5, 2016, Plaintiff is ordered to submit to being deposed in this case pursuant to the requirements set forth below.
.
.
.
f. Plaintiff is specifically ordered to give his solemn oath or affirmation and to testify truthfully as if the oath or affirmation had been administered by the officer in his presence.
I had informed my attorney that compulsory depositions are prohibited in Thailand and that I was a willing and cooperative witness. I proposed service of notice by registered mail with return receipt; however, the motion to compel was granted and the deposition has been ordered.
Below is an excerpt from the US State Department website.
“Thailand is not a party to the Hague Evidence Convention. Voluntary depositions may be conducted in Thailand regardless of the nationality of the witness, provided no compulsion is used. Oral depositions or depositions on written questions may be taken by U.S. consular officers or by private attorneys from the United States or Thailand at the U.S. Embassy or at another location such as a hotel or office, either on notice or pursuant to a commission.”
Below is an except from USA passport website.
“Depositions of willing witnesses may be conducted in Thailand regardless of the nationality of the witness. The procedure does not vary in civil, administrative or criminal cases. Depositions may take place on U.S. consular premises or at other locations such as offices or hotels. The witnesses may refuse to take an oath or refrain from answering any or all questions. No compulsory measure, either direct or indirect is allowed.”
I suspect that the compulsion is an issue. If I was retired in Alaska for example, the order would look the same as for Thailand. It seems that the court has ignored Thai law and/or regulation along with reasonable diplomacy.
So my concern is that the deposition will be invalid and could be challenged at trial or on appeal. My attorney asked what can Thailand do to the USA? He also speculated that if I object to a compulsory deposition, then the judge will dismiss the case.
Can anyone shed some light on this situation?
Last edited: