Garner et al v. Mohave County et al

Filing 131

ORDER granting 121 Motion for Sanctions: All counsel shall limit their deposition objections to concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive statements, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). See order for additional details. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/29/2016.(LMR)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Joseph Garner, et al., Plaintiffs, 11 12 13 14 15 vs. Mohave County, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-15-08147-PCT-PGR ORDER 16 Pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 17 Rule 30(d)(2) (Doc. 121), wherein the plaintiffs seek an order requiring all counsel 18 to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). Although the Court does not believe that this 19 issue should have gotten to this point, it concludes from the submitted materials that 20 the parties have reasonably attempted to resolve the issue underlying the motion 21 without court intervention. Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court 22 finds that the motion should be granted. 23 The gist of the issue before the Court is whether the defendants’ counsel has 24 been engaging in improper speaking objections during depositions. Rule 30(c)(2) 25 mandates that an objection made during a deposition “must be stated concisely in 26 a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” An objection that is argumentative 1 or which suggests an answer to the deponent is an improper speaking objection. 2 Both sides have submitted sample objections made by the defendants’ counsel and 3 the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that some of the cited objections are in fact overly 4 verbose, improperly argumentative, and/or improperly suggestive of the answer to 5 be given by the deponent.1 The Court expects all future deposition objections to be 6 succinct, nonargumentive, and noncoaching. Therefore, 7 IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 8 30(d)(2) (Doc. 121) is granted and that all counsel shall limit their deposition 9 objections to concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive statements, as required 10 by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). 11 DATED this 29th day of January, 2016. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 The Court concludes that the following objections by the defendants’ counsel are examples of improper speaking objections: 20 • “ Also object on the basis of foundation as this document. It says 11/25 of 2014 was the adoption date so that’s after Karen Garner’s incident just for the record.” • ”I am going to object to this question on the basis that it’s incomplete in terms of you didn’t read the entire document and also foundation since he said he was not a sworn deputy. Go ahead and answer if you can.” • “Object to the form of the question; he’s already told you he didn’t know the voice.” 21 22 23 24 25 26 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?