
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In our never-ending mission to ensure you're never caught off guard, no matter what the tactic, today we address the question whether multiple lawyers on behalf of the same party object during a deposition. As always, we discuss the best strategies when using (or defending against) this tactic, and we provide cases on point in the show notes. Have a great week!
SHOW NOTES
Webster v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-11293-MAG-CI, 2023 WL 6509097 (E. D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2023) (holding that there is no prohibition against multiple lawyers for the same party objecting while defending a deponent, but limiting parties to a single attorney during future depositions in the case)
Continental Casualty Company v. Compass Bank, Case No. CV-04-0766-CB-C, 2005 WL 8158673 (S. D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2005) (finding there is no flat prohibition against the practice of having multiple lawyers objecting on behalf of the same party during a deposition)
Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) (authorizing the trial judge to control the mode of examination and presentation of evidence at trial)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)(A) (allowing for an oral motion to terminate or limit a deposition in progress where it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner intended to annoy, oppress, or embarrass a party or deponent)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (authorizing parties to seek protective orders limiting or otherwise prescribing the manner in which discovery may be conducted)
By Jim Garrity5
9999 ratings
In our never-ending mission to ensure you're never caught off guard, no matter what the tactic, today we address the question whether multiple lawyers on behalf of the same party object during a deposition. As always, we discuss the best strategies when using (or defending against) this tactic, and we provide cases on point in the show notes. Have a great week!
SHOW NOTES
Webster v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-11293-MAG-CI, 2023 WL 6509097 (E. D. Mich. Oct. 5, 2023) (holding that there is no prohibition against multiple lawyers for the same party objecting while defending a deponent, but limiting parties to a single attorney during future depositions in the case)
Continental Casualty Company v. Compass Bank, Case No. CV-04-0766-CB-C, 2005 WL 8158673 (S. D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2005) (finding there is no flat prohibition against the practice of having multiple lawyers objecting on behalf of the same party during a deposition)
Fed. R. Evid. 611(a) (authorizing the trial judge to control the mode of examination and presentation of evidence at trial)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(3)(A) (allowing for an oral motion to terminate or limit a deposition in progress where it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner intended to annoy, oppress, or embarrass a party or deponent)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (authorizing parties to seek protective orders limiting or otherwise prescribing the manner in which discovery may be conducted)

25,805 Listeners

3,214 Listeners

1,943 Listeners

9,570 Listeners

676 Listeners

1,113 Listeners

745 Listeners

56,536 Listeners

185 Listeners

5,552 Listeners

28 Listeners

61,492 Listeners

15,955 Listeners

19,768 Listeners

29 Listeners