Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08147/USCOURTS-azd-3_15-cv-08147-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Garner, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Mohave County, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-08147-PCT-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

 Pending before the Court is the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to

Rule 30(d)(2) (Doc. 121), wherein the plaintiffs seek an order requiring all counsel

to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2). Although the Court does not believe that this

issue should have gotten to this point, it concludes from the submitted materials that

the parties have reasonably attempted to resolve the issue underlying the motion

without court intervention. Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the Court

finds that the motion should be granted.

The gist of the issue before the Court is whether the defendants’ counsel has

been engaging in improper speaking objections during depositions. Rule 30(c)(2)

mandates that an objection made during a deposition “must be stated concisely in

a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.” An objection that is argumentative

Case 3:15-cv-08147-PGR Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

The Court concludes that the following objections by the defendants’

counsel are examples of improper speaking objections:

• “ 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.”

- 2 -

or which suggests an answer to the deponent is an improper speaking objection.

Both sides have submitted sample objections made by the defendants’ counsel and

the Court agrees with the plaintiffs that some of the cited objections are in fact overly

verbose, improperly argumentative, and/or improperly suggestive of the answer to

be given by the deponent.1

 The Court expects all future deposition objections to be

succinct, nonargumentive, and noncoaching. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule

30(d)(2) (Doc. 121) is granted and that all counsel shall limit their deposition

objections to concise, nonargumentative, and nonsuggestive statements, as required

by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c)(2).

DATED this 29th day of January, 2016.

Case 3:15-cv-08147-PGR Document 131 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2