decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Objections at Depositions
Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 11:38 PM EDT

You likely noticed, in the article just prior to this one, that when IBM's attorney asked Otis Wilson a question at his deposition, it frequently resulted in SCO's attorney calling out, Objection. Why? The witness answers the questions anyway, and there is no judge there to rule on anything, so what is the explanation?

I looked up some information on depositions in "New York Practice", by David D. Siegel, and this is what I learned:

1. Unlike other forms of disclosure, there is a general policy against using depositions at trial, in favor of having the person show up then and testify in person, so the jury can observe their demeanor;
2. One purpose of a deposition is to inform the other side of what your contentions are;
3. The deposition can be used to impeach a witness at trial, meaning you can point out differences between what the person said at the deposition with what he or she says at trial;
4. A deposition of any party, as opposed to third-party witness, may be used to establish facts at trial -- the plaintiff can read what the defendant said at a deposition and vice versa;
5. Before the depostion of any other party can be used as evidence in chief, a proper foundation must be laid, meaning there has to be a good reason that the statute sets out for doing so. For example, if a deposed witness dies before trial, or can't be found anywhere, you can then use the deposition as evidence;
6. The deposition is taken before a notary public, usually with a stenographer present, and nowadays often with someone to video the proceedings. Judges can, of course, preside, but manpower needs make that rare indeed;
7. The attorney can ask anything relevant to the case, and it's no use talking about a fishing expedition, because pretty much anything is fair game, the whole point of a deposition being to go fishing;
8. Objections, while frequent, don't stop the proceedings in most cases. If there is an objection and the witness's counsel tells him not to answer, the other side can make this the subject of a motion for a disclosure order. If there happens to be a judge nearby, he can rule on whether a question is acceptable during the course of the deposition;
9. The witness's attorney may cross-examine the witness, and in so doing can introduce new information. Anyone who thinks the deposition might be used against him can also cross examine.

Why all the regulations? To make sure a party can't make the person his witness, just by deposing him or her. But what about all the objections? What is that for? Siegel says this:

"To encourage every party to be relaxed and open at the deposition, insofar as any law can bring this off, it is provided that no objection is waived by not being made at the session. Later, if and when the particular question is read at the trial, any lawyer can object to it, and the objection at that time will be disposed of under the rules of evidence even though the question was answered without objection in the deposition. If the applicable rule bars the answer, it will be kept from the jury regardless of the fact that the answer stands forth in full flower on the folios of the transcript. The only exception is an objection to the form of the question. Here the theory is that the prompt putting of the objection will enable the questioner to cure it with a mere rephrasing. Mere form objections must therefore be noted or they are waived.

"The trial lawyer is still cautious at the deposition. The fact that he need not make substantial objections does not mean that he may not. If he does, the issue is usually resolved, whether by an immediate ruling by a nearby judge or on a later motion to compel disclosure, by reference to the evidence rules just as they would be used at the trial. The courts are especially impatient with petty objections at this stage, however. It has been suggested that the lawyer should restrictg his deposition objections to only those questions which are palpably irrelevant or which violate some legal privilege or constitutional right. Perhaps the rule of thumb for the lawyer seeking an ideal stance is to object to only those questions which, in addition to invoking some exclusionary evidenciary rule, elicit data which he does not want the opposing side -- not just the jury -- to know at all."

In trying to match this with the deposition, I still didn't know what the objections were all about. Was the SCO side objecting so later they can prevent the jury from hearing this testimony? Or was it about rattling the witness? I realized that to figure that out, you would need to know what the various objections mean. What does it mean when he says, Objection, vague, compound, lacks foundation? The book didn't explain that part, so I asked AllParadox, our resident retired attorney, if he would please explain.


Objections at Deposition,
by AllParadox

Why are they doing this, what are they allowed to do, and is it all really worth it?

Let's start with a review of objections in general, for those who have not grown up on the TV show "Perry Mason".

Context: an objection is a specific legal procedure, executed in the context of a contested hearing, e.g. a jury trial. Usually, the hearings are being recorded by the Court's regular certified court reporter. If a trial judge errs, the court reporter's transcript, plus the admitted exhibits, become the record that may be reviewed by a court of appeals (up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court). The words that describe handling of objections are "sustained" and "overruled", corresponding to "granted" and "denied" used when discussing motions. I.e. objections are sustained, while motions are granted, but the concepts are identical: you won.

Objections are the way that attorneys prevent improper procedure and conduct during a trial or deposition. Ojections may be raised for all manner of errors. I am going to limit my discussion here to those errors usually committed during the interrogation of a witness, because those are the ones that are interesting in the context of a deposition.

A most serious statement: if nobody objects, you may do it. Each party may have an attorney. The attorney knows when and how to make and preserve objections. If the attorneys agree, and the judge is not offended, you can do the most outrageous and outlandish things, and I have.

Cooperation is not necessary, however. Incompetence will often do quite nicely. If you are facing the death penalty in Texas, and your attorney goes to sleep during the trial, he cannot object. If improper evidence is admitted during his nap, Texas will kill you anyway.

Part of it is knowing how to make an adequate record. The attorney must make such a clear description in the record that there is an adequate basis for the Court of Appeals to support the attorney's position. I will save the detailed procedural description of "record making" for another time.

For a corporation, there are two interesting versions of witness to be deposed: your own employees, and strangers.

For your own employees, certain information should be kept confidential. For example, "What has your attorney said to you today?" violates attorney-work-product rules, and should be exempt.

Whether employee or stranger, other things can still be objectionable. Hearsay is still hearsay, speculation is still just guessing, and nasty, offensive conduct by the attorney is unacceptable. "Are you a pedophile?" better have a rock solid foundation, or else the Judge himself will refer the lawyer to the Disciplinary Committee.

The procedural situation in the deposition room is complicated. The purpose of the deposition is to discover useable evidence. The rules for disovery say that anything that might lead to useable evidence is allowed. At the same time, the purpose of the objection is to limit improprieties, and to preserve a record for appeal.

The solution is a compromise. During the deposition, the attorneys must make proper, timely, accurate objections. He must object to every improper question every time, and on every improper ground. Many times, the other attorney will state for the record in the deposition that he or she consents to a "continuing objection". A continuing objection to something like a connected series of hearsay statements allows the questioner to get a flow in the transcript, and the objector can be sure that the objection is presumed to have been properly raised for every question. The objection will be considered to be "preserved".

Also, "subject to the objection" is frequently used. After an objection is raised, the questioner will turn back to the witness and say: "Subject to the objection, what is your answer to the last question?" This allows both for discovery to proceed while protecting objections in the record. Hearsay is a poor way to make a case, but a powerful way to root out information.

Before a transcript is admitted into evidence, the attorneys will have a hearing on the record with the judge. They will go through the transcript, and the attorneys must restate any objections they wish to preserve. Any ojections they forgot to make have already been lost. Lawyers refer to them as "waived". The Judge rules on the re-stated objections. Objectionable sections are blacked out to prevent the jury from reading them, and copies of the censored trascript are prepared for all parties.

When attorneys anticipate that there will be problems during a depostion, a special master may be requested. Some firms are notorious for refusing to allow a witness to speak, citing frivolous objections. When you take the objection to the judge, he rules against them. You reschedule the deposition, and start over. They make exactly the same objection, and refuse to allow the witness to speak. It never seems to end. One solution is to file a motion asking the judge to appoint a special master for the deposition. If the judge agrees, he will appoint someone. Often these are retired lawyers that also preside over things like arbitrations. The special master sits in the deposition room. If an objection is raised, the special master is empowered to rule on it immediately. The parties must pay the expense for the special master.

Another preemptive step is to file a motion for a protective order. If a key employee is being deposed, and that person knows a lot about things that really should not be part of the lawsuit, the attorneys can file for a protective order limiting the inquiry to proper areas, and for confidential information to be sealed.

To give a list of all objections that might come up in a deposition would be a course on evidence. What follows is a short list of common deposition objections, a very brief description of what they mean, and perhaps a comment. Note that to be timely, the objection must be made at the end of the question, but before the answer is given. When the witness starts the answer before the question ends, things can get dicey.

Question calls for hearsay: literally, what did someone else, not the witness, say. This includes written statements as well. There are so many exceptions, some extremely technical, to the hearsay rule, that it almost no longer exists. Still, failure to object waives the objection.

Question calls for speculation: non-expert witnesses are to testify about what they know, and not to guess at the answer.

Question calls for expert opinion, and witness is not an expert: an expert opinion is speculation, so the above objection could also apply. Before expert opinion testimony is admissable, the expert must be "qualified". An expert is "qualified" by giving testimony that supports a conclusion that he is really an expert.

E.g.: qualification of a plumber (yes, plumbers may be experts)
Q: Are you a plumber by trade? A: Yes.
Q: Are you a licensed plumber? A: Yes.
Q: What is your level? A: I am a Master Plumber
Q: When did you become a Master Plumber? A: May 27, 1985
Q: Approximately how many residential plumbing installation projects have you worked on since becoming an apprentice plumber? A: More than five thousand.
Q: Are you familiar with the BOCA code? A: I better be, I live by it.
Q: So you are familiar with the BOCA code? A: Yes, extremely familiar
Q: Did you examine the plumbing installation at ...
Q: Therefore, in your professional, expert, opinion as a plumber, was the plumbing installed in conformance to the BOCA code at that residence?
Other Attorney: Objection. Calls for expert opinion.

Note that even though the witness above is pretty clearly experienced as an expert plumber, opposing counsel objected, just to preserve the objection. Some jurisdictions may still require a formally proper hypothetical question to be asked, but this is required less and less.

Question calls for attorney-work-product: lawyers have to do their own work. No fair asking what opposing counsel has been discussing. Usually, witness is not allowed to answer. Often seen waived in the following exchange:

Q: Has this attorney told you to say anything?
A: He sure did. He told me to tell the truth.

Question calls for priveleged information: Priest, attorney, physician, spouse, may be priveleged by statute from answering the question. Usually witness is not allowed to answer.

Question calls for immaterial or irrelevant answer: Perry Mason's favorite. Rarely used in real courtrooms because immaterial questions usually get irrelevant and non-prejudicial answers, so one or two such questions cost nothing and cause no problems.

Question has been asked and answered: the witness may be required to answer a question. Once the question has been answered, the witness should not be harassed by being asked the same question again. Usually, indicates either an aggressive questioner with a neophyte opponent, or else a questioner that is unprepared, typically because he or she received an earlier unexpected response.

Question is vague: the purpose of depositions is to find information. Vague questions allow witnesses to give poor answers, or to volunteer information that should not be part of the record because it is objectionable on other grounds. This protects the attorney and the record when other objectionable information comes in, and allows a post-answer objection to have effect.

Question calls for legal conclusion: three persons in the courtroom may make legal conclusions, i.e. say what the law is; the judge, plaintiff's counsel, and defendant's counsel. The line gets a little fuzzy when dealing with contract negotiations. Then, the intent of the negotiator, though a legal conclusion, may still be relevant.

Question mischaracterizes ... : questions should accurately reflect prior statements. Questions that seriously misstate a description of another statement or document invite errors.

Question is leading: a leading question suggests the answer. "You are a Master Plumber, aren't you?" is a leading question. Leading questions are allowed in some places and not others. Generally, cross-examiners may ask leading questions, anyone may ask leading questions of hostile witnesses, and leading questions are usually allowed to quickly direct a witness to a specific time and incident before open-ended questions are required.

Question is compound: ask one question at a time, not two at once. A compound question may allow a misleading answer.

Question lacks proper foundation: before a witness answers, there should be some evidence in the record that the witness had an opportunity to see the incident, and recall it. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the witness will give information received from someone else; hearsay.

Question calls for a free narrative: attorneys ask specific questions, witnesses give specific answers. "Tell us what you know" is an invitation to an evidentiary disaster.


Objections at Depositions | 128 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off-Topic Threads Here Please
Authored by: chrisbrown on Thursday, September 30 2004 @ 11:40 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to AllParadox go here
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:15 AM EDT
Another fascinating read. Thanks, AP!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: AntiFUD on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT


// Thanks for another great expose AllParadox

IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Otis Wilson deposition?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:31 AM EDT
You likely noticed that when IBM's attorney asked Otis Wilson a question at his deposition, it frequently resulted in SCO's attorney calling out, Objection. Why? The witness answers the questions anyway, and there is no judge there to rule on anything, so what is the explanation?
No, I didn't notice, because I haven't seen a transcript of the deposition - and I wasn't a fly on the wall in the depo room either.

Is there a transcript? Or what specifically is this referring to?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at Depositions
Authored by: AugustFalcon on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:06 AM EDT
In Connecticut the standard practice at depositions was for the parties to
agree that all objections except those as to form would be reserved for trial.

In that way the depos went much smoother and were less stressful for the
witnesses while still providing a facility to resolve formal defects which would

render answers less than certain or ambiguous.

Absent that stipulation the questioner was faced with the dilemma of either
proceeding with another question or ajourning to the nearest court with a
free judge available to adjudicate the dispute. Not very cost effective, nor
it endear you to either your client or to the judges!

In many cases opposing counsel would continue to object; either because
they felt it gave them a tactical advantage, or because they just did not
understand the rules of evidence. Alas, there were too many of the latter.

I do have a minor disagreement with the previous poster in his claim that a
narrative answer or a question calling for such is objectionable: I do not
believe that is so under the usual rules of evidence.

His example question: "Tell us what you know" is objectionable as to
but questions such as "What happened next?" or "When you arrived
at the
scene, what did you do?" certainly are not objectionable yet do suggest
answers which may be given in a narrative form.

Opposing counsel still has the opportunity to object to those portions of the
answer which violate the precepts of the rules of evidence. But the witness
has the right to answer the question in his own voice.

Of course, the narrative may be a tactical disaster for the questioner, but it
very seldom so for opposing counsel.

I haven't read the depo yet, so I do not know what stipulations if any were
entered into. There are those cases where one gives no quarter or where it is
otherwise necessary to demonstrate to the client your advocacy on his behalf
and perhaps that may be in play here.

Remember that what is going on is part of a TRIAL with all that implies. It is
contest, a time of testing under stress to arrive at truth. As an advocate you

try to protect your witnesses and ratchet up the pressure on opposing
witnesses and counsel all the while remaining within the applicable rules.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Leading and direct questions
Authored by: webster on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 02:26 AM EDT
I tell lawyers, young and/or inexperienced, to ask direct questions when they
put a witness on and leading questions when they cross-examine someone else's
witness. This doesn't help them unless you add the following:

Then I tell them some simple rules: 1) direct questions begin with
"w" like the newspaper guide, who what when where and why. 2)
Leading questions are those that can be answered by yes or no. With leading
questions you are more interested in your questions than the answers. It is a
way for the lawyer to testify. There is also an old adage, "Never ask a
question for which you don't know the answer." This last rule is not as
important in a deposition where you are looking for answers.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Completely OT but...
Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 06:05 AM EDT
If anyone knows of mikecwaslurker over on the Yahoo board, be sure to
congratulate him and offer a rec. He just became a grandfather. /me has a big
goofy grin from ear to ear, and wishes best of luck to all.

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the witness object?
Authored by: delcielo on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT
I've often wondered if the witness may object if he feels his attorney has
missed an important objection.

Would I, for instance, be allowed to say "Objection, hearsay." if my
attorney did not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Important ruling.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
Hooray! link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question(s) for AllParadox
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT
I noticed your name and your sig, "All is Paradox," and it got me
wondering what do you mean by this? Is it a result of how you see the world
thru a lawyers eyes? Or is it a personal philosophy? Or is it just a nick and a
sig? Or...

Anyways, just wondering?

[ Reply to This | # ]

We've been left hanging, AllParadox...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 12:26 PM EDT
"...If the attorneys agree, and the judge is not offended, you can do the
most outrageous and outlandish things, and I have..."

I'm just hanging here wondering what kind of things you've done. Please, could
you give us a few examples of these things, preferably with a description of the
setting, type of case etc...?

Or would doing this violate some sort of ethical or moral prohibition?


[ Reply to This | # ]

"I object to the objection"
Authored by: webster on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT
Just because ya'll are learning some lawyer secrets is not a reason to leave
your brains behind.

Just because you know the objections and reasons for objections, does not mean
you know when to use them. Having been through many painful trials and hearings
where cocounsel objected correctly despite the fact that:

1) We were getting some good information, favorable even; and

2) we were saving a lot of time with the improper questions.

Just because you know the rules is not a reason to use them. Be reasonable. It
is especially time consuming when the judge doesn't know the rules either or
doesn't know how to conduct an efficient proceeding.

Unfortunately, we all learned this the hard, long way.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at Depositions
Authored by: n5yat on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:13 PM EDT
I was the victim of this one:

"3. The deposition can be used to impeach a witness at trial, meaning you
can point out differences between what the person said at the deposition with
what he or she says at trial"

At a deposition I was asked about a specific portion of some code I wrote for a
friend who was being sued, and I said that it was "small", meaning
that it was only a few lines of code.

At the trial I was asked about the importance of the same piece of code and I
said it was "large", in the sense that it was used very often. A
device driver, for example, may be a small amount of code, but be large in
importance because of the fact that it is used so often, and that it is the ONLY
way to communicate with the hardware. Well, of course the lawyer made a big
issue of the fact that I called the same code "small" and
"large", trying to make me look like a bumbling idiot, and more
importantly, confuse the jury since they probably knew nothing about the
concept. Luckily, the other lawyer did understand the concept and on cross,
asked specific questions to allow me to make the distinction and clarify.

But, lesson learned if ever again in my life I have to go throught that. Say as
little as possible at deposition (but still answer the question with honesty),
and memorize the deposition transcript before trial...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at Depositions
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT
"You likely noticed that when IBM's attorney asked Otis Wilson a question
at his deposition, it frequently resulted in SCO's attorney calling out,
Objection. Why? The witness answers the questions anyway, and there is no judge
there to rule on anything, so what is the explanation? " PJ

I can think of one: to distract opposing counsel from the job job that needs to
be done by breaking up the flow of the deposition, cascading in a disruption of
the train of thought of both declarant and opposing counsel, thus making the
deposition process less effective and thorough than it could have been.

I will note additionally that SCOG followed up on its objections that either the
questions or the answers were allegedly "vague", "leading",
and "incomplete" by referring approvingly in its subsequent motions to
the "plain text of the AT&T contract" and asserting that the
depositions and supporting evidence such as the AT&T $echo letter are
"extraneous". I will repeat that the "plain text of the AT&T
contract" does not help SCOG at all, but SCOG would rather try to argue in
circles and dance around the terms of the AT&T contract than have to
confront the single, unified and consistent package of AT&T contract,
depositions and AT&T $echo letter: SCOG is definitely one bully who does not
like to be beaten up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at Depositions
Authored by: marbux on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 03:51 PM EDT
1. Unlike other forms of disclosure, there is a general policy against using depositions at trial, in favor of having the person show up then and testify in person, so the jury can observe their demeanor[.]
PJ, "policy" might not be the best way to phrase it. Lawyers generally prefer to call witnesses to testify live because deposition transcripts, lacking inflection and body language, can lack the persuasive force of a live witness. Some lawyers like to get past this problem somewhat by exercising their right to have an actor (often another lawyer) take the stand and read the answers to the jury, in response to the trial lawyer reading the questions to the witness.

There's often no choice but to use a deposition transcript at trial. For example, under the federal rules, a witness generally can't be compelled to attend a trial unless it's within 100 miles of the witness' home. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A). And as you mention, witnesses may not be available for other reasons. A lot of times, witnesses can be persuaded to attend trial despite the distance, but all too often all you're left with is the deposition transcript.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at depositions and witness coaching
Authored by: marbux on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 04:51 PM EDT
A most serious statement: if nobody objects, you may do it.
Too true. One common form of deposition abuse is witness coaching, where a lawyer's objection is really intended to suggest an answer to a witness being represented by that lawyer, and really isn't a valid objection at all. In most cases, a "coaching objection" will improperly imply that the objecting lawyer knows in advance of the answer what the witness will say in response.

Some common examples: A lawyer may object to a question as calling for speculation. That isn't a valid basis for objection. What the lawyer is really doing is suggesting to his client that he answer the question with "I could only speculate about the answer to that question."

Another very common form of coaching is for the lawyer to interrupt between the question and his client's answer to say, "you can go ahead and answer if you know the answer to the question." This also isn't an objection at all, and has no conceivable purpose other than to suggest that the answer should be, "I don't know."

Yet another: "You can answer if you have personal knowledge." Again, the objection presupposes what the witness knows, and is actually intended to provoke the answer, "I don't have any personal knowledge about that." Presumably, the witness can be trusted to testify about what he or she does know, and counsel can explore whether it is personal knowledge on cross or redirect examination.

The basic rule is that depositions are to be conducted as though the judge were present and a trial was being held. Only objections that can permissibly be made at trial are proper during questioning in a deposition.

I made it a firm policy that our lawyers would never permit witness coaching without opposition. Witness coaching is a very serious matter; it's actually subornation of perjury, a felony criminal matter. But it's incredibly common. Whenever I've encountered it, I've gone off the record, taken opposing counsel out of the room, and discussed the problem, letting them know that when we go back in, I'll object on the record to the blatant coaching, and if it happens again, I'll immediately adjourn the deposition and get a judge on the phone to rule on the issue.

Although I can't recall a lawyer ever admitting that he was coaching a witness, the off-record discussion was usually sufficient to end the problem. A couple of times, I actually had to involve a judge to get an order requiring that the attorney misconduct cease. Incredibly, those lawyers argued that their objections were proper. In both cases, the judge immediately disabused them of that notion.

Part of the underlying problem is that in suing corporate defendants, the defense lawyers frequently attempt to represent lower level and former employees of the defendant, rather than confining themselves to representing management. That immediately sets up a conflict of interest under the attorney disciplinary rules because the witness' interest is in testifying truthfully and avoiding perjury, while the lawyer's interest is in protecting the corporate client from liability. Witness coaching to obtain perjured testimony is often the result.

So it can be important in appropriate cases to move to disqualify opposing counsel from representing lower level and former employees of the defendant corporation on grounds of conflict of interest. A deposition track record of witness coaching can be invaluable evidence in pursuing such a motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objections at Depositions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 01 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT
I object! This argument is devastating to our case!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )