When two parties get locked into the death struggle that is a lawsuit, the intermediate stage in the case is something called “discovery.” It’s the opportunity both sides have to get information from the other side, as well as from witnesses in the case. This involves things like asking the other party to produce documents or answer written questions about the dispute.
Or, in what may be the most effective discovery tool, taking depositions. It is, however, also the most expensive way to get information. In a deposition, one party is allowed to ask questions of the other party (or of any witness) under oath. All of the proceedings are taken down by a court reporter — hence, the testimony is “deposited” for future reference.
Because the witnesses are questioned under oath, and all parties can be present to ask questions of the witness if they wish, this procedure preserves the testimony. If a witness dies or disappears, the testimony can be introduced in court despite the witness’ unavailability.
So far, so good. But because this process usually involves all of the lawyers getting into the same room with one another — without the adult supervision of a judge — some strange things occasionally happen during depositions.
Sometimes, they are simply amusing, as demonstrated by a list of memorable questions and answers collected by court reporters that has been circulating for years. In one, an attorney asks a witness, “Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?” The witness responds, “No, this is the way I dress when I go to work.”
Or to take a different example, in an Ohio dispute over the charges imposed by a county recorder’s office for copies of documents, the attorneys (and the witness) got into a clash during questions about a photocopier. According to those reports, the attorney challenging the recorder’s office’s fees asked one of the recorder’s employees whether his office had “photocopying machines.” The following was part of what ensued:
“[Witness]: When you say ‘photocopying machine,’ what do you mean?
“[Questioning Attorney]: . . . . You don’t have an understanding of what a photocopying machine is?
[Witness]: No. I want to make sure that I answer your question correctly. . . . When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?“[Questioning Attorney]: . . . . The term ‘photocopying machine’ is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?
“[Witness]: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.”
It went on like this for ten pages, the witness at one point comparing “photocopying machines” to cars, noting “[T]here are different cars. Some of them run under gas power, some of them under electric power, and I’m asking if you could help me out by explaining what you mean by ‘photocopying machines.’”
The attorney suing the recorder’s office for charging excessive fees (apparently $28 a page for the first page of any document[!], and $2 a page for each page thereafter) said that he never did get an answer to his question — apparently because the recorder’s office was claiming that computer copies of the records were “photocopies,” which may explains the witness’ reluctance to answer.
The New York Times found this exchange so hilarious that it actually hired actors to play the participants and create a little mini-play that it published in its online edition.
Still, when it comes to bizarre deposition behavior, no one can really top the behavior of a fellow named Shih-Hua Alan Lee. Lee had sued a woman named Sara Sukumar claiming that she owed him money on a loan. The case was dismissed, and Sukumar turned around and sued Lee for bringing a frivolous lawsuit against her. The trial judge ruled in Sukumar’s favor, and Lee appealed. At one point, the court of appeal quoted this tidbit from the trial judge’s ruling: “The Court has not gone into all the instances of Mr. Lee’s unbelievable testimony, such as his testimony regarding why he had a hand puppet at the deposition. . . . [T]he testimony of Mr. Lee simply is not credible.”
The court of appeal explained further, “The trial court’s reference to the hand puppet apparently was based on the testimony of three attorneys who described how Lee wore a panda bear hand puppet during his deposition in his breach of contact action and occasionally spoke through it.” The court of appeal then added dryly (though probably unnecessarily), “That conduct does not usually enhance one’s credibility.”
Or . . . perhaps it’s where Mel Gibson got the idea for his 2011 motion picture, “The Beaver.”
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies a deposition on the ground was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: A deposition-on the ground )
Also on site :
- Iran’s new security boss Mohammad Zolghadr: Why his appointment matters
- UK ‘runs out’ of warships – leaving Germany to take over key Nato mission
- Kim Jong Un uses Iran war to justify North Korea’s decision to keep its nuclear weapons