A general civil question of law

[cunundrum69]

US Federal District Court in California.

I am a pro-per Plaintiff in a civil action. I recently had my case management conference with the attorney's for the Defendant's and we discussed the issue of Depositions. I informed the Defendant's that I wanted to conduct a deposition where I asked the Defendant's questions first. The Defense disagreed and said they would object and would request the Court to order me, the plaintiff, to sit down and answer the questions they asked me first in a deposition. So that's the dispute.
I would think that it would be the Plaintiff that gets to call the witnesses and ask questions first. He is the one bringing everyone into court, and the complaint is his. Like in a criminal case, the petitioner, being the District Attorney, the one bringing the action into court, gets to call witnesses and ask the questions first before the Defense, like in a preliminary hearing.

My questions are as follows:

QUESTION 1: In a federal civil action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, is it usually the Plaintiff or the Defendant's who must first be ordered to answer questions during a deposition? Is there a law which mandates this procedure or is it up the Judges discretion who must be questioned first? How does this work?

QUESTION 2: I am pro-per, which means I have total control of my case. Whether this is a wise decision is something that I will have to contend with. But, when I give a deposition I would like some legal advocate on my side to assist me if things get aggressive and heated, or if, while I am on the hot seat, I don't catch a question that needs to be objected to. etc. My question is whether or not I would be allowed to hire counsel to assist me exclusively for the purposes of giving a deposition? This wouldn't be co-counsel, but merely temporary advisory counsel paid for by me. Aren't I allowed to formulate a legal team?

Any suggestions are appreciated thank you.

 

[cyjeff]

You need an attorney.

No attorney worth the hourly rate is going to take second chair to a person that doesn't even know the first thing about proper procedure.

I am not trying to be cruel... but you are walking into a gun fight holding nothing but a piece of paper that says "BANG!" on it and then hoping that the other side is nice enough to die.

Your post shows that you can't do this without an attorney... an attorney leading the fight.

 

[cunundrum69]

You need an attorney.

No attorney worth the hourly rate is going to take second chair to a person that doesn't even know the first thing about proper procedure.

I am not trying to be cruel... but you are walking into a gun fight holding nothing but a piece of paper that says "BANG!" on it and then hoping that the other side is nice enough to die.

Your post shows that you can't do this without an attorney... an attorney leading the fight.

Thank you for the advice. But this still doesn't answer the question. I already explained how I was proper and any pitfalls or losses I would experience would be my fault. I don't need to hear GET AN ATTORNEY. The reason I came to this forum was to get the advice not be told not to ask for advice. They should shut this free advice forum down, and when people come to this web site seeking legal advice, there should be a great big sign saying... IF YOU WANT ADVICE GET AN ATTORNEY. What a crock. If you don't have the answer to the questions stay off the posts.

 

[tranquility]

Notice your deposition. Find an attorney to help if you want on yours. It's stupid to want to be first to depose.

 

[CSO286]

They should shut this free advice forum down, and when people come to this web site seeking legal advice, there should be a great big sign saying... IF YOU WANT ADVICE GET AN ATTORNEY. What a crock. If you don't have the answer to the questions stay off the posts.

Feel free to seek a refund on your way out.

 

[cyjeff]

Thank you for the advice. But this still doesn't answer the question. I already explained how I was proper and any pitfalls or losses I would experience would be my fault. I don't need to hear GET AN ATTORNEY. The reason I came to this forum was to get the advice not be told not to ask for advice. They should shut this free advice forum down, and when people come to this web site seeking legal advice, there should be a great big sign saying... IF YOU WANT ADVICE GET AN ATTORNEY. What a crock. If you don't have the answer to the questions stay off the posts.

Okay, let's try this another way.

You have this whole thing worked out in your head. That you are going to ask the defendant the perfect question that will make your case. You will then trap the defendant with his/her own words and your case will be over.

It doesn't work that way. You see, his/her attorney will just tell him/her not to answer that question. You won't know how to phrase it properly and something in your question will enable the other side to refuse to answer.

You will screw yourself right into the ground and lose your case.

To answer all the questions you will have would require roughly 3 years of intense study. Luckily, there are people that have already gone through that education. We call them lawyers. You need one.

 

[aren]

I highly doubt you will find an ala carte attorney. I've tried. I think they have to know your case which requires more than sitting next to you objecting. I recently represented myself at hearing. I was totally shocked when they objected to the entering into evidence documents they provided but stating that they didn't know where they came from. I was dumbfounded.

 

[Tex78704]

My question is whether or not I would be allowed to hire counsel to assist me exclusively for the purposes of giving a deposition? This wouldn't be co-counsel, but merely temporary advisory counsel paid for by me. Aren't I allowed to formulate a legal team?.

As Cyjeff noted, no attorney worth their salt would take a back seat to a pro se litigant, and put themselves in a position of being ridiculed by other attorneys, for what would amount to a peanuts job.

...I recently represented myself at hearing. I was totally shocked when they objected to the entering into evidence documents they provided but stating that they didn't know where they came from. I was dumbfounded.

And this is a good example of the risk one takes when going pro se and not understanding rules of evidence, objections, and offers of proof to overcome objections. While Aren was admittedly dumfounded by this, it is par for the course for many attorneys who are prepared for such contingencies.

 

[cyjeff]

Further, you are only going to get one shot at this.

Why wouldn't you assemble a winning team?

 

[dlw99]

I highly doubt you will find an ala carte attorney. I've tried. I think they have to know your case which requires more than sitting next to you objecting. I recently represented myself at hearing. I was totally shocked when they objected to the entering into evidence documents they provided but stating that they didn't know where they came from. I was dumbfounded.

I agree. Attorneys are just like any other professional or tradesman - they don't want to have to clean up your mess.

That being said, there was a criminal harassment case last year on Cape Cod
where a man with a high school education represented himself and was acquitted of harassing a couple of town attorneys. The prosecutor was Joseph Kennedy III.

To answer your second question, yes, you're "allowed" to have an attorney present to advise you, but as others have already said, you will have trouble finding one to do it.