Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04350/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04350-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 46:688 Jones Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

C-05-4350 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDULRAHMAN MUNASSAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

HORIZON LINES, INC

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 05-4350 JL

ORDER RE ATTORNEY

CONDUCT AT DEPOSITION

Introduction

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Jones Act , 46 U.S.C. §688

and the consent of the parties as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Civil Local Rule 73.

The jury trial of this case is calendared for November 13, 2006 and the parties are in the

final stages of discovery.

Discovery Dispute

Plaintiff advised the Court by telephone and e-mail on September 5, 2006 of a

discovery dispute:

I am plaintiff’s attorney of record in the above-listed case for alleged personal injury

damages under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §§688; et seq., and the general maritime

law. A copy of this e-mail was simultaneously sent to defendant’s attorney of record,

Harvey Wittenberg. Time is important, as a deposition is pending on September 6,

2006 at 3:00 p.m. of a seafarer – percipient witness, whom I believe will ship out

tomorrow, September 6. This action is set for jury trial on November 13, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-04350-JL Document 21 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

C-05-4350 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 4

The crux of the matter arises out of a deposition which I just took of defendant’s

Chief Mate McDorr today, June 5, 2006, and addresses my concern about one

which I will be taking of defendant’s Chief Engineer Mills on June 6 at 3:00 p.m.

During Mr. McDorr’s deposition, Mr. Wittenberg repeatedly interfered with my

attempts to cross examine this managing employee. Mr. Wittenberg would make

“speaking objections” and/or ask for “clarifications” that either suggested the answer

or so “explored” the question that it became useless to ask it and hope for an

untainted response. In one especially egregious instance, Mr. Wittenberg kept

insisting that I change my question; by then end of his “objection,” everyone in the

room knew what the answer should be. In an even more egregious instance, while I

was trying to test the memory of this percipient witness, Mr. Wittenberg presented

his copies (not exhibits to the deposition) of accident site photographs to the witness

literally as the witness was getting ready to address my question about the condition,

the “look,” of that site; then Mr. Wittenberg audaciously denied on the record that he

had done so and invited me to seek the Court’s assistance: this is why my office

called the Court’s staff on September 5. Unfortunately, Mr. McDorr’s deposition was

completed before this Honorable Court could address the matter. Mr. McDorr’s

deposition may well have been de bene esse in effect because Mr. McDorr plans on

shipping and may be at sea on November 13. Such is likely also to be the case as to

Chief Engineer Mills’ pending deposition. 

 In short, Mr. Wittenberg’s conduct has and likely will continue to severely, unduly

prejudice my ability to cross examine percipient witnesses whom are managers of

and deemed controlled persons by the defendant. 

Plaintiff respectfully seeks this Honorable Court’s order that Mr. Wittenberg not make

further speaking objections, nor point out upon exhibits information subject of a

pending question.

The Court received no communication from Defendant’s counsel, and makes no

judgment whether Defendant’s counsel actually engaged in the conduct of which Plaintiff’s

counsel complains. However, to guide counsel in further conduct during depositions, the

Court issues the following order.

Conclusion and Order

It is an unfortunate and wasteful use of the Court's time to intervene and instruct

attorneys about a code of conduct which they should know and observe without the

Court's intervention. 

 Courts have ordered specific guidelines in cases where deposition conduct was at

issue, for example: 

 “The following guidelines for depositions are hereby imposed: 

Case 3:05-cv-04350-JL Document 21 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

C-05-4350 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 4

 A. At the beginning of the deposition, deposing counsel shall instruct the witness to

ask deposing counsel, rather than the witness's own counsel, for clarifications, definitions,

or explanations of any words, questions, or documents presented during the course of the

deposition. 

 B. All objections, except those which would be waived if not made at the deposition

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 32(d)(3)(B), and those necessary to assert a

privilege, to enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the Court, or to present a motion

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(d), shall be preserved. Therefore, those

objections need not and shall not be made during the course of the deposition.

 C. Counsel shall not direct or request that a witness not answer a question, unless

that counsel has objected to the question on the ground that the answer is protected by a

privilege or a limitation on evidence directed by the Court. 

 D. Counsel shall not make objections or statements which might suggest an answer

to a witness. Counsels' statements when making objections should be succinct, stating the

basis of the objection and nothing more. 

 E. Counsel and their witnesses and clients shall not engage in private, off- the-record

conferences during depositions or during breaks or recesses, except for the purpose of

deciding whether to assert a privilege; and, any off-the- record conference is a proper

subject for inquiry by deposing counsel to ascertain whether it was done in violation of this

Order. 

 F. Deposing counsel shall provide to the witness's counsel a copy of all documents

shown to the witness during the deposition. The copies shall be provided either before the

deposition begins or contemporaneously with the showing of each document to the

witness. The witness and the witness's counsel do not have a right to discuss documents

privately before the witness answers questions about them. 

 Any counsel violating these guidelines shall be subject to sanctions, upon motion by the

opposing party.” Armstrong v. Huffman, 163 F.R.D. 299, 304-305 (E.D.Mo. 1995). 

Conclusion and Order 

Case 3:05-cv-04350-JL Document 21 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

C-05-4350 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 4

 All counsel in the case at bar shall observe the guidelines above, in all depositions in

this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2006

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04350-JL Document 21 Filed 09/06/06 Page 4 of 4