To Zoom or not to Zoom? That is the question, at least when it comes to taking depositions of mass tort plaintiffs. We take no overall position on this issue, having been on both sides of the debate. Situational ethics govern us. Be that as it may, we view developments in this area with interest.
One of the blogposts that generated a lot of “Thanks, I needed that” responses from our readership was our 2022 post, “Remote Depositions in MDLs.” For that reason, we have updated it by adding references to additional MDL orders on that subject that have been entered since early 2022. We pay particular attention to MDL orders because, due to their stakes, every procedural jot and tittle is gone over with a fine-toothed comb. The “litigate everything” mentality in MDLs produces the most comprehensive consideration of issues that arise in remote depositions generally. We asked one of our crack legal assistants to look for additional MDL orders during this time frame to see what MDL transferee judges – advised by the parties – have had to say most recently about the conduct of remote deposition.Continue Reading Remote Depositions in MDLs 2.0
Litigation is about the subject at hand, of course. Is the product really defective? Did it really cause the alleged injury? But litigation can also be about the litigation itself. It’s like that line in The Beatles’ Penny Lane: “And though she feels as if she’s in a play/She is anyway.” The process and its
We read a couple of recent articles in the local Philadelphia legal press questioning whether lawyers participating in depositions really had any idea what the “usual stipulations” for their depositions even were. Between the two articles, they cited three cases. The issue also prompted some discussion among us bloggers, with one of us commenting that, “for decades,” he has rejected reference to “usual stipulations” in depositions, in favor of the phrase “applicable rules and orders.”Continue Reading What Are the “Usual Stipulations” for Discovery Depositions, Anyway?
Counsel defending depositions have a decision to make – whether, after opponent’s the direct examination of the witness is complete, whether to “cross-examine” a witness aligned with our own client. Usually, the answer will be “no,” because such questioning usually offers no advantages and could well undermine the witness (who may lose focus under friendly
As a follow-on to our post last year about remote (Zoom) depositions), we received a suggestion that we examine MDL orders to see how they have been handling remote deposition procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. That made sense to us because in MDLs every procedural jot and tittle is gone over with a fine-toothed comb.
With November representing the 18th month of socially distanced litigation, we thought we’d take a look at what courts have said about remote (usually Zoom) depositions. Like it or not, we think they’re here to stay.
Yes/No
The first question is whether or not to have them. Can one side impose them unilaterally?
The answer
Here is another post by our blogger in training, Dean Balaes. This time he explores an interesting decision that applied the “sham affidavit” doctrine to defeat an all-too-common P-side deposition tactic, last minute leading questions (often when the defense has no time for re-cross) designed to generate self-serving answers that contradict prior damaging testimony.
Any lawyer practicing for more than five minutes has heard of the lawsuit called Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Charles Dickens constructed his great (in size and merit) novel Bleak House around the fictitious case, which drew together the fates of a large cast of characters. Jarndyce and Jarndyce concerned the interpretation of a will, occupied the
Our ongoing tour of Famous Novels We Missed Along the Way has introduced us to some splendid prose. Thackeray and Trollope insert subtle judgments just beneath the surface of their narratives. They can teach us much about how to deliver an opening statement that is a powerful argument precisely because it does not sound like