You Are Guilty
Senior Member
"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable (and sometimes quite useful) answer at a deposition. But (certain types of) objections are required to be made or else they are waived, a serious problem.
The proper method of attacking attempted improper discovery is through objection rather than by not answering, but there was no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to impose sanctions for failure to answer a clearly improper question. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pfitzinger 569 S.W.2d 335 (1978).
Sounds like you have yellow-bellied attorneys on your side.
Presumably, opposing counsel will argue that your answers to such questions are "admissions against interest" which would then make them admissible, but it's not something your lawyer should be letting happen willy-nilly as it's an arguable point. Particularly when failing to answer puts the ball in the opposing side's court, and requires them to make a motion and seek the court's intervention:57.07(b)(4) said:Regarding Conduct During the Deposition. An objection to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony is not waived by failure to object before or during the deposition. Errors and irregularities in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of parties and errors of any kind that might be cured if promptly presented are waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made during the deposition. Objections as to the form of written questions submitted under Rule 57.04 are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding them within the time allowed for serving the succeeding cross or other questions and within ten days after service of the last questions authorized.
Of course, you always take your chances that the judge will not believe it is an "improper question", but assuming he/she does, you should be fine.61.01 said:g) Failure to Answer Questions on Deposition. If a witness fails or refuses to testify in response to questions propounded on deposition, the proponent of the question may move for an order compelling an answer. The proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the deposition examination before applying for an order. In ruling upon the motion, the court may make such protective order as it would have been empowered to make on a motion pursuant to Rule 56.01(c).
If the motion is granted, the court, after opportunity for hearing, shall require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
If the motion is denied, the court, after opportunity for hearing, shall require the moving party or the attorney advising the motion or both of them to pay to the party or deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the court finds that the making of the motion was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
If the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable expenses incurred in relation to the motion among the parties and persons in a just manner.
If the motion is granted and if the persons ordered to respond fail to comply with the court's order, the court, upon motion and reasonable notice to the other parties and all persons affected thereby, may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others, it may take any action authorized under Rule 61.01(d).
The proper method of attacking attempted improper discovery is through objection rather than by not answering, but there was no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to impose sanctions for failure to answer a clearly improper question. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pfitzinger 569 S.W.2d 335 (1978).
Sounds like you have yellow-bellied attorneys on your side.