Paul v. Redwood National And State Parks Department et al

Filing 163

ORDER RE: DEPOSITIONS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/5/2020)<hr><center>Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)</center>

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM D. PAUL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-07197-SI
ORDER RE: DEPOSITIONS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 162
AARON MILLHENCH, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

The parties have submitted a joint statement regarding a dispute that arose at the deposition

14

of defendant Cather regarding objections made by defense counsel. Plaintiff seeks a protective order

15

prohibiting counsel from making improper “speaking objections” and limiting objections to “form”

16

unless an explanation is requested by examining counsel or unless necessary to protect a claim of

17

privilege. Defense counsel asserts that her objections were proper and brief and that she did not

18

coach the witness.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) provides that an objection made during a deposition

20

“must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” The Court has

21

reviewed the deposition transcript and concludes that defense counsel’s objections largely complied

22

with this requirement. Defense counsel objected to several questions on the ground that the

23

questions called for expert rather than percipient testimony; the Court agrees that the questions, as

24

phrased, could be interpreted as such. Defense counsel also objected to the manner in which the

25

witness was being questioned (Page. 19); it is the Court’s view that plaintiff’s counsel can ask

26

questions directed at ascertaining intent and what information was communicated between the

27

officers in a different fashion.

28

The Court expects all future deposition objections to be succinct, nonargumentative and

1

noncoaching. The Court also expects counsel to cooperate with each other. If further issues arise

2

during the course of a deposition, counsel are instructed to pause the deposition and immediately

3

contact the Court’s deputy clerk by e-mail to determine whether a conference call with the Court

4

can be arranged. The Court finds it unfortunate that the deposition of Officer Cather was terminated

5

after only 30 minutes, as such practice is not in anyone’s interest.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: June 5, 2020

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2