In this episode, we feature a brand-new deposition-related ruling that continues to build on the post-COVID pandemic rulings holding that in-person depositions remain the default and that parties seeking to force a remote-video deposition must satisfy the formidable good-cause burden. It's a great decision for your research bank, as are the others we've provided in the show notes below.

And here's a bulletin for you. As Jim explains here, research in the field of behavioral psychology shows us there's a powerful psychological reason for insisting that your deponent appear in person - and it isn't that you can personally gauge their demeanor. Don't miss this one!

SHOW NOTES

Groskreutz v. Agropur, Inc., No. 25-CV-1153, 2026 WL 1694341 (E.D. Wis. June 11, 2026) (in-person deposition required because of need for counsel to observe body language and because plaintiff failed to show good cause for remote video deposition)

Eletson Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Levona Holdings, Ltd., and Apargo Limited, et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2025), CM/ECF Doc. 505 (order requiring in-person deposition)

Simoni v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-01267 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2023), CM/ECF Doc. 66 (order requiring in-person deposition)

Crutchfield v. Experien Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-CV-05697 (N. D. Ill. October 16, 2025), CM/ECF Doc. 44 (order requiring in-person deposition)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (“By Remote Means. The parties may stipulate—or the court may on motion order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the purpose of this rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(2), and 37(b)(1), the deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(b) and (c) (authorizing court to determine manner, time, and place of deposition or other discovery)

Bond & Depaulo, Accuracy of Deception Judgments, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol 10, Issue 3 Aug. 2006, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2

Have you ever had a queasy feeling, as an examining lawyer is explaining the so-called ground rules for the deposition with your witness, that something about the instructions was amiss? But you weren't quite sure what to say - and didn't really know whether or how to object? Instructions like, "Can we agree that if you answer a question, it means you understood it?", and "Will you agree to limit your testimony to actual facts you personally know to be true, and not answer based on speculation or opinion?" can box your client in, cause them to omit important information, and do grave damage at later evidentiary hearings or trials. In this episode, Jim Garrity explains how these kinds of instructions may be improper and how to articulate your objections. It's a definite don't-miss.

In this episode, Jim talks about the value of "second-order" examinations - asking deponents not only what they know, but what others know (and what others know that still others know, which is a form of third-order knowledge). It's an incredibly valuable tool for ensuring you fully understand the actors, documents, and events in your cases. Garrity explains why witnesses will talk more freely about what others know than about what they themselves know, and wraps up with practice tips for litigators who are either taking - or defending against - second-order knowledge examinations.

As always, thanks for listening!

In this final episode of our cross-examination series, Jim Garrity turns to the Reid Technique, the interrogation system developed in the 1940s for American law enforcement. Though the method has drawn serious criticism and been linked to false confessions, many of its individual components quietly appear in depositions, administrative hearings, and arbitrations every day, often deployed by lawyers who have never heard the name John Reid.

We break the technique into three "movements" civil litigators will recognize: the non-accusatory, warm opening that triggers reciprocity; confrontation and theme development, where a sympathetic narrative conceals a damaging concession; and the compound question that forces a false binary. Along the way, we cover how to prepare witnesses to recognize tonal shifts, resist softened mischaracterizations, and reject false either/or options. Finally, Jim explains how taking attorneys can ethically deploy these tools themselves.

In this third installment of our series on examination techniques, Jim Garrity dives into the so-called Reptile Method, developed by jury consultant David Ball and plaintiff’s attorney Don Keenan, and explained in their 2009 book Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff’s Revolution. It's long been a controversial approach because, some say, it's a disguised version of Golden Rule arguments that are generally forbidden in most jurisdictions. But whether you’re on the plaintiff side looking to deploy it or the defense side looking to neutralize it, you need to understand how the three-stage sequence works, and where it’s vulnerable.

SHOW NOTES

https://columbialawreview.org/content/shadow-tort-law-lessons-from-the-reptile/ (Columbia University law review article on "The Reptile" method)

https://lewisbrisbois.com/insights/clientalerts/the-reptile-theory-in-practice (defense firm blog on the Reptile Theory)

https://imslegal.com/articles/reptile-brain-strategy-why-use-it-how-counter-it (jury consulting firm article on the Reptile Method)

In this second episode in a series on different cross-examination methods, Jim Garrity spotlights Irving Younger's famed Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination. It's one of the earliest formal systems for conducting an effective cross. As Jim explains, there isn't a single "best way" to question or cross-examine witnesses. The path to world-class examination styles is being aware of the different approaches, understanding them, experimenting with them, and even possibly combining elements from several to develop your own style.

In this episode, and over the next few, Jim Garrity analyzes some of the better-known techniques or methods of conducting deposition cross-examinations. He begins with the Pozner-Dodd method, based on the book Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques, by Larry Pozner and Roger J. Dodd. As Jim explains, there isn't a single "best way" to question or cross-examine witnesses. The path to world-class examination styles is being aware of the different approaches, understanding them, experimenting with each, and even possibly combining elements from several to develop your own style.

SHOW NOTES:

Pozner, Larry and Dodd, Roger J., Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques, 3d. Ed.

https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Examination-Science-Techniques-Larry-Pozner/dp/1632843919/ref=sr_1_4?crid=2OP2T6EBDBNI3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.o49yLDTFRzsh1lO1WhQd4xBgkEuhYLH3obvuBC2GIdpGyzn1i0dg1lEzyMEYoFcB.NPgrs8W1727PEigEc3OXABbQt85juirYS59s5B12ids&dib_tag=se&keywords=pozner+dodd&qid=1772489570&sprefix=pozner+dod%2Caps%2C227&sr=8-4

In this episode, Jim Garrity - the leading expert in the country on deposition strategies and tactics - rolls out another spectacular deposition strategy you won't find anywhere else. It's the application of the PACE Method to your deposition scheduling. It will change how you draft your deposition notices forever.

PACE - an acronym for Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency - was devised by the U.S. Military to ensure that if the primary plan goes haywire, there is a Plan B: an immediate go-to backup. And a Plan C, and a Plan D. It sharply increases the odds of mission success because there are no debates or delays when one plan fails. Everyone switches to the next layer of redundancy.

Here, Garrity tells you how to apply PACE to deposition scheduling, so that when your primary plan for deposing a witness - say, an in-person deposition - cannot proceed, you (and all other participants) immediately switch to your alternate plans.

As always, thanks for listening to the number #1 podcast in the world devoted exclusively to deposition strategies and tactics for litigators handling civil, administrative, arbitrative, and criminal proceedings.

In this episode, Jim Garrity urges you once again (see Episode 7, Audiotaping Your Depositions) to independently audiorecord your depositions. Apart from all the prior, excellent reasons he discussed, there's a new one, and it stems from technical glitches that disrupt the reporter's audio and video feed in a remote deposition. Give this one a careful listen!

SHOW NOTES

McGillvary v Riez, et al., Case No. 22-6430-MAS-JBD, 2025 WL 2962775 (D. New. Jersey Oct. 17, 2025) (memorandum order on, among other things, a motion to suppress the transcript of the plainest deposition and to compel production of the audio recording of the deposition, based on allegations that the transcript contained numerous errors and omissions) 

A must-listen episode with actionable guidance for litigators and trial teams who want to keep depositions moving and the record clean. We break down the “you can answer” interjection: why it is usually unnecessary, how it inserts defending counsel into your Q-and-A, and how repetition disrupts tempo and shifts the witness from answering questions to seeking permission. You will get a ready-to-use preliminary instruction that tells the witness to answer after objections unless counsel clearly instructs “don’t answer” or the witness needs a rephrase. We also cover when to address opposing counsel on the record and how to frame the issue as coaching and delay. If the conduct escalates, we explain how Rule 30(d)(3)(A) supports suspending the deposition and seeking a protective order.

SHOW NOTES:

Sample preliminary instruction to minimize "You can answer" gatekeeping"

During this deposition, the lawyers may make objections from time to time. For example, you may hear one of the lawyers say objection, or object to the form. These objections are mainly for the court reporter and, if necessary, for the judge later. They’re not signals to you to stop or to wait for permission. The only time you may hesitate is if the objection you’ve heard is “don’t answer that question.” Otherwise, after objection, or if theres no objection, go ahead and answer the question that was asked, after you heard the objection. You should not turn to your lawyer after each question, or wait for your lawyer to say you can answer after each question. Just listen to the question, and if you understand it, answer it in your own words. The only time you should stop answering as if your lawyers objection is along the lines of don’t answer that question, or if you yourself don’t understand the question and need me to rephrase it. Otherwise, you should go ahead and answer the question.