Have you taken deposits? Has your opponent constantly insisted on inappropriate objections? One after another: "irrelevant" "hearsay" "" Assuming the fact is not evidence "," Requesting opinions "Unpleasant, is not it?
Or worse, the lawyer gave a lawyer designed boldly to instruct the witness, "There was a misunderstanding that the jury believed the story side, that is, the cardiologist could not review the abnormal EKG and this witness There is actually evidence in the lung that there is no EKG being performed unless you have examined the patient and instruct the witness not to answer for the reason that doing so is harmful.
The deposit may cost more than $ 1,000, and in some cases it may take several weeks to several months, so inappropriate disputes can be quite intense. This raises the question of which objection is appropriate for deposit.
The first thing to keep in mind is that prophecy is to do discovery. Then, the scope of the discovered that is permitted is "items that do not have privileges related to the subject involved. [that is] It seems that it will lead to the discovery of evidence that is accepted as evidence or reasonably accepted. " "Civil Procedure Act § 2017.010.
Therefore, attention should be paid to questions asking for information with privileges that are not computed to find evidence that is not related to the subject at all times, or subject to reasonable acceptance during deposit. The opposite of such a question is most likely likely to be appropriate, if successful.
The privilege can be easily grasped and the "reasonably calculated" question is a question that reveals only logically unacceptable problems. The concept which is difficult to understand is "not related to the subject". This is not the same as "relevance" as a test of "tolerance" used in evidence code § 350. Rather, it is best to believe that 'related to the subject' for discovery purposes is useful for evaluating cases, preparation for trials, or promoting settlements. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (San Fernando City) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546). Also, when investigating irrelevant problems, it is balanced. The court will consider whether the benefits that enable discovery outweigh the burden. See Bridgestone / Firestone v. Superior Court (Rios) (1992) 7 Cal.App 4th 1384, 1391.
The important thing to keep in mind is that the range of discoveries allowed is very wide. "It was calculated that it would lead to the discovery of reasonably recognized evidence", if you reveal other evidence that you can not admit, to allow you to investigate areas you can not admit means. Greyhound Corp. v. See the Superior Court (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal 2 d 355, 384. Therefore, the appropriate grounds for challenging the deposit question is narrower than the trial.
For example, it is permissible to hear to those seeking hearing, leaders calling for hearing, information that may be technically unrelated to the problem, or opinions from onlookers. Answers to these questions may not be accepted in the trial version, but it could lead to follow-up questions to clarify the evidence they admit. Therefore, objections such as "hearing", "irrelevant", "asking for opinion" etc. are generally inappropriate for deposit.
Particularly in the case law, there is a possibility of submitting documentary evidence, so you can ask questions to subpoena for evidence. Smith v. Superior Court (Alfred) (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12. Likewise, searching for cumulative information is allowed, so it is inappropriate to go against that reason. TBG Ins. Service v. High Court (Zieminski) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448. One exception to this general rule is discovery and permission from non-parties.
Declaring privilege is a legitimate objection to deposit. Such objections of privilege include attorney-client (Evid.Code § 950), physician-patient (Evid.Code § 990), psychotherapist - patient (Evid Code § 1010), clergy - repentant (Evid Code Code § 1030) (Evid.Code 940), Spouse communication (Evid.Code 980), Trade secret (Evid Code 1060), Tax refund (Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2 d 509, 5133 - 514 ), Matters discussed in mediation (Evid.Code § 1152), etc.
The next group of appropriate objections in deposits disputes the form of questions. The lower row (b) of the civil action § 2025.460 is abandoned unless an objection is raised in the form of the question in the deposit. Such objections include the assertion that the question is ambiguous, confusing, complex, requiring excessive stories, requiring speculation and being controversial.
These objections need not be discussed. If the other person disagrees with the form of your question, please do not be concerned about whether the objection is legitimate. Simply rephrase your question.
I saw a defense lawyer threatening plaintiffs and lawyers of plaintiffs without trial experience, seeking a copy of the complaint and explaining the plaintiffs to explain the legal issues. These are inappropriate questions in the sediment, and objections to them will be sufficient. Rifkind v. See the Superior Court (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App 4th 1255, 1259. However, it is permissible for plaintiffs to ask questions about facts from the complaint.
I also saw that lawyers are instructing clients not to answer questions after appeal. This is appropriate only if the objection is accompanied by privilege. In fact, subdivision (a) of Civil Procedure § 2025.460 actually requires you to instruct or abandon the question and not to reply to your clients in order to defend the privilege objections.
However, it is inappropriate to instruct witnesses not to answer questions for other reasons. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App 4th 1006, 1015. It becomes tough because it hinders the flow of information and tends to make witnesses bold to look for a lawyer at any time for the side door.
Reasons for violating deposit obligations include objections related to misconduct by faults of deposit notice, flaws on oath or affirmation, parties, lawyers or court reporters.
EmoticonEmoticon