Inappropriate questions by an attorney

[bgio]

What is the name of your state? California

Just recently an attorney asked inappropriate questions during a deposition to a witness. He did because the witness was not represented by an attorney. My question is can I file a motion with the judge so as to discuss the questions asked and why.
To give you a little background the attorney was representing the plaintiff on special appearance ( he was not the designated counsel) apparently designated counsel could not make it and had him appear for him. During the deposition there were two other attorneys present that also agreed that his questions were inappropriate. Again for reitteration the witness was not represented so the attorney thought it would be wise on his part to take advantage of it. In any regards I am a defendant In Pro Per in the case and would like to have the judge hear this. What do I do and how do I do it. Thank you very much.

 

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state? California

Just recently an attorney asked inappropriate questions during a deposition to a witness. He did because the witness was not represented by an attorney. My question is can I file a motion with the judge so as to discuss the questions asked and why.
To give you a little background the attorney was representing the plaintiff on special appearance ( he was not the designated counsel) apparently designated counsel could not make it and had him appear for him. During the deposition there were two other attorneys present that also agreed that his questions were inappropriate. Again for reitteration the witness was not represented so the attorney thought it would be wise on his part to take advantage of it. In any regards I am a defendant In Pro Per in the case and would like to have the judge hear this. What do I do and how do I do it. Thank you very much.

What was the "inappropriate" question?

 

[bgio]

The attorney asked questions in regards to where he banks, his sons business, how much money he makes, etc... In addition there were a great deal of questions that could of been objected to (facts not in evidence) and ( relevance). The witness had absolutely no connection to the law suit, one of his sons is being suied however the son is 22 years of age. THey are trying to see if the father has money to give to the son to give to the plaintiff. Again i would like to reiterate that the witness had no connection to the suit, the simple fact of deposing him was uncalled for and not understood. Hope that helped.

 

[You Are Guilty]

The attorney asked questions in regards to where he banks, his sons business, how much money he makes, etc... In addition there were a great deal of questions that could of been objected to (facts not in evidence) and ( relevance). The witness had absolutely no connection to the law suit, one of his sons is being suied however the son is 22 years of age. THey are trying to see if the father has money to give to the son to give to the plaintiff. Again i would like to reiterate that the witness had no connection to the suit, the simple fact of deposing him was uncalled for and not understood. Hope that helped.

OK. You can contact whomever you wish, but it won't make a difference.

One, none of the above is "palpably improper*", and two, even if it was, the time to object was when the question was asked, (and not answer it) rather than wait until after the fact. Three, the witness chose to appear without a lawyer which means four, neither you nor the other attorneys present were representing him. That leads to five, which is that you have no standing to argue on behalf of this witness - it's his bone to pick, not yours.

In a nutshell, this is a classic case of "MYOB".




* "Palpably improper" questions are things like: "Does the carpet match the drapes?" or "Do you like movies about gladiators?".

 

[Rhubarb297]

OK. You can contact whomever you wish, but it won't make a difference.

One, none of the above is "palpably improper*", and two, even if it was, the time to object was when the question was asked, (and not answer it) rather than wait until after the fact. Three, the witness chose to appear without a lawyer which means four, neither you nor the other attorneys present were representing him. That leads to five, which is that you have no standing to argue on behalf of this witness - it's his bone to pick, not yours.

In a nutshell, this is a classic case of "MYOB".




* "Palpably improper" questions are things like: "Does the carpet match the drapes?" or "Do you like movies about gladiators?".

"Palpably improper?" Okay, you made that up.

The legal standard is whether the discovery is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." If the question meets that criteria, it's a perfectly okay question and the deponent has to answer. Oh, and the rules of discovery are intepreted very liberally.

The parent could have moved for a protective order to prohibit the discovery or moved to quash the deposition. Both are very difficult to win. I agree that you're fighting a losing battle. It doesn't even appear to be your battle.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

"Palpably improper?" Okay, you made that up.

The legal standard is whether the discovery is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." If the question meets that criteria, it's a perfectly okay question and the deponent has to answer. Oh, and the rules of discovery are intepreted very liberally.

The parent could have moved for a protective order to prohibit the discovery or moved to quash the deposition. Both are very difficult to win. I agree that you're fighting a losing battle. It doesn't even appear to be your battle.

Rhubabrb,
You can do better than this if you are who you say you are.
Where have you been these last few months?

As we have asked you before, please cite the relevant California Codes and or Rules of Court. I'll give you a clue, to one section for a start.:
CALIFORNIA CODES
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 2016-2036
2016. (a) This article may be cited as the Civil Discovery Act of
1986.
2017. (a) Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property.

To OP:
The time for objections was during the deposition. If the other attorneys discussed the matter, was it on the record? If it was taken off the record, the record will show the recess was taken. But as the above section of code shows, almost anything can be discoverable, that is why depositions are done.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Rhubabrb,
You can do better than this if you are who you say you are.
Where have you been these last few months?

As we have asked you before, please cite the relevant California Codes and or Rules of Court. I'll give you a clue, to one section for a start.:
CALIFORNIA CODES
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 2016-2036
2016. (a) This article may be cited as the Civil Discovery Act of
1986.
2017. (a) Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property.

To OP:
The time for objections was during the deposition. If the other attorneys discussed the matter, was it on the record? If it was taken off the record, the record will show the recess was taken. But as the above section of code shows, almost anything can be discoverable, that is why depositions are done.

Actually what I said was exactly right. Attorneys can cite the phrase "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" in their sleep. And that's exactly what it says in the California Civil Procedure Code. What I did was simply it for the poster. To be discover able:
1) the evidence must be admissible; or

2) the evidence must be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

The way I phrased it is much better for the poster to understand the concept than to simply copy and paste something from the California code.

Oh, and in answer to your question, spring is a very busy time at the title company. It's hard for me to get on this forum. Are you still giving people incorrect legal advice on this forum. I have to give you credit. While a great deal of your information was incorrect, at least you didn't pretend to be an attorney like some other posters.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Actually what I said was exactly right. Attorneys can cite the phrase "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" in their sleep. And that's exactly what it says in the California Civil Procedure Code. What I did was simply it for the poster. To be discover able:
1) the evidence must be admissible; or

2) the evidence must be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

The way I phrased it is much better for the poster to understand the concept than to simply copy and paste something from the California code.

Oh, and in answer to your question, spring is a very busy time at the title company. It's hard for me to get on this forum. Are you still giving people incorrect legal advice on this forum. I have to give you credit. While a great deal of your information was incorrect, at least you didn't pretend to be an attorney like some other posters.

Rhubarb,
You basically dissed YAG when you said, ""Palpably improper?" Okay, you made that up." and then basically said the same thing. If you are going to do that, at least take the time and cite something appropriate to the State in question if you are going to challenge someone, especially since OP is in Pro Per. You both put the concepts in simpler terms, but neither explained it to OP. Just another Ego Trip.

Now in regard to you last comments, the bar # you gave doesn't go to an attorney at a title company, so you are not an attorney either, which explains all the incorrect advice you give and why you feel free to to practice law impersonating an attorney. How dare you make any claims about anyone else's advise, you obviously have no idea what is correct. I am not the only person on this site to note that you are impersonating an attorney. I did check you out as you suggested.

 

[seniorjudge]

OK. You can contact whomever you wish, but it won't make a difference.

One, none of the above is "palpably improper*", and two, even if it was, the time to object was when the question was asked, (and not answer it) rather than wait until after the fact. Three, the witness chose to appear without a lawyer which means four, neither you nor the other attorneys present were representing him. That leads to five, which is that you have no standing to argue on behalf of this witness - it's his bone to pick, not yours.

In a nutshell, this is a classic case of "MYOB".




* "Palpably improper" questions are things like: "Does the carpet match the drapes?" or "Do you like movies about gladiators?".

YAG, you are, of course, correct.

A second trial started on September 28, 1966, but this ended with a mistrial on October 11 because the prosecutor asked defendant a palpably improper question.

A palpably improper question can get you a lot of trouble in California.

classes.lls.edu/spring2002/ crimlaw-goldman/CriminalLawMaster12pt.DOC

 

[rmet4nzkx]

YAG, you are, of course, correct.

A second trial started on September 28, 1966, but this ended with a mistrial on October 11 because the prosecutor asked defendant a palpably improper question.

A palpably improper question can get you a lot of trouble in California.

classes.lls.edu/spring2002/ crimlaw-goldman/CriminalLawMaster12pt.DOC

Judgy,
Your learned opinion is needed here https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=248209

 

[seniorjudge]

Judgy,
Your learned opinion is needed here https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=248209

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=981698#post981698

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Thank you

 

[You Are Guilty]

In my defense, I misread the OP's state (don't ask how). The discussion about discovery limits I provided is entirely correct, just not in CA. NY, DE and VA residents should be fine though

In any event, the ultimate answer was still the right one.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

In my defense, I misread the OP's state (don't ask how). The discussion about discovery limits I provided is entirely correct, just not in CA. NY, DE and VA residents should be fine though

In any event, the ultimate answer was still the right one.

I know but you also know Rhubarb's frail ego. I don't know why he has the nerve to continue to post here when everyone knows he is not who he claims to be. If he was going to take on the ID of an attorney he should have at least picked one that actually worked at a title company instead of a civil right's firm.

 

[You Are Guilty]

LOL true. But if you ban all the Rheetards, think of how boring it'll get here


PS: In retrospect, the examples of improper questions I provided would remain improper under either "test". Not that it matters, since the questions, proper or not, were already answered.