Source: https://e-discoveryteam.com/2014/08/10/jones-day-misconduct-shows-rotten-state-of-obstructionist-discovery-in-america/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:33:03+00:00

Document:
You have probably heard about the sanctions order against a Jones Day attorney entered by U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett. But have you read the order? Now you can. It is reproduced here in full. I have not changed a thing, except to embolden the text that I think is of special interest to e-discovery practitioners. The misconduct described in here pertains to deposition defense, but the general comments apply to all types of discovery, including electronic.
1 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HAMLET, act 1, sc. 4.
much of the cost of litigation is incurred in discovery, the discovery process has been the focal point of considerable criticism.”2 How little things have changed.
2 Griffin B. Bell et al., Automatic Disclosure in Discovery—The Rush to Reform, 27 GA. L. REV. 1, 1 (1992).
3 See Matthew L. Jarvey, Note, Boilerplate Discovery Objections: How They Are Used, Why They Are Wrong, and What We Can Do About Them, 61 DRAKE L. REV. 913, 917 n.20 (2013) (collecting cases disapproving of boilerplate objections); St. Paul Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 513 (N.D. Iowa 2000) (same).
4 Hon. Paul W. Grimm & David S. Yellin, A Pragmatic Approach to Discovery Reform:How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference in Civil Discovery, 64 S.C. L. REV. 495,530 (2013).
The truth is that lawyers and clients avoid cooperating with their adversary during discovery—despite the fact that it is in their clear interest to do so—for a variety of inadequate and unconvincing reasons. They do not cooperate because they want to make the discovery process as expensive and punitive as possible for their adversary, in order to force a settlement to end the costs rather than having the case decided on the merits. They do not cooperate because they wrongly assume that cooperation requires them to compromise the legitimate legal positions that they have a good faith basis to hold.
Lawyers do not cooperate because they have a misguided sense that they have an ethical duty to be oppositional during the discovery process—to “protect” their client’s interests—often even at the substantial economic expense of the client.
Clients do not cooperate during discovery because they want to retaliate against their adversary, or “get back” at them for the events that led to the litigation. But the least persuasive of the reasons for not cooperating during the discovery process is the entirely misplaced notion that the “adversary system” somehow prohibits it.
Id. at 525-26 (footnotes omitted). Amen Brother Grimm and Mr. Yellin for being so insightful and refreshingly candid.
reinforce—even incentivize—obstructionist tactics.7 Most litigators, while often inept in jury trials (only because they so seldom experience them), are both smart and savvy and will continue to do what has worked for them in the past. Obstructionist litigators, like Ivan Pavlov’s dogs, salivate when they see discovery requests and are conditioned to unleash their treasure chest of obstructive weaponry. Unlike Pavlov’s dogs, their rewards are not food but successfully blocking or impeding the flow of discoverable information.
Unless judges impose serious adverse consequences, like court-imposed sanctions, litigators’ conditional reflexes will persist. The point of court-imposed sanctions is to stop reinforcing winning through obstruction.
While obstructionist tactics pervade all aspects of pretrial discovery, this case involves discovery abuse perpetrated during depositions. Earlier this year, in preparation for a hard-fought product liability jury trial, I was called upon by the parties to rule on numerous objections to deposition transcripts that the parties intended to use at trial. I noticed that the deposition transcripts were littered with what I perceived to be meritless objections made by one of the defendant’s lawyers, whom I refer to here as “Counsel.” I was shocked by what I read. Thus, for the reasons discussed below, I find that Counsel’s deposition conduct warrants sanctions.
7 Cf. id. at 483 (“The reluctance of courts to impose sanctions under Rule 37 has encouraged the use of evasive and dilatory behavior in response to discovery requests. Such behavior serves no purpose other than to increase the cost and delays of litigation.”).
This matter arises out of a product liability case tried to a jury in January of 2014. Plaintiff Security National Bank (SNB), acting as conservator for a minor child, J.M.K., sued Defendant Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), claiming that J.M.K. suffered permanent brain damage after consuming baby formula, produced by Abbott, that allegedly contained a dangerous bacteria called enterobacter sakazakii. SNB went to trial against Abbott on design defect, manufacturing defect, and warning defect claims. On January 17, 2014, a jury found in favor of Abbott on SNB’s product liability claims. The Clerk entered judgment in favor of Abbott on January 21, 2014.
8 Iowa trial lawyers have a long and storied tradition and culture of civility that is first taught at the state’s two law schools, the University of Iowa College of Law and the Drake University Law School. I know this because I have taught and lectured at both of these outstanding law schools that produce the bulk of Iowa lawyers. Civility is then taken very seriously, nourished and lead by the Iowa Supreme Court, and continually reinforced by the Iowa State Bar Association, the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers, and all of the other legal organizations in the state, as well as senior members of the bar, law firm partners from large to small firms, and solo practitioners across the state. There is great pride in being an Iowa lawyer, and describing someone as an Iowa lawyer almost always connotes that lawyer’s high commitment to civility and professionalism. Of course, there are stinkers in the Iowa bar, but they are few and far between.
sanction Counsel for the “serious pattern of obstructive conduct” that Counsel exhibited during depositions by making hundreds of “form” objections that ostensibly lacked a valid basis. Because I did not want to burden Counsel with the distraction of a sanctions hearing during trial, I suggested we table any discussion of sanctions until after the trial was over. Thus, the same day the judgment was filed, I entered a supplemental order to show cause, ordering Counsel to address three issues that potentially warrant sanctions: (1) Counsel’s excessive use of “form” objections; (2) Counsel’s numerous attempts to coach witnesses; and (3) Counsel’s ubiquitous interruptions and attempts to clarify questions posed by opposing counsel. My supplemental order focused on Counsel’s conduct in defending two particular depositions—those of Bridget Barrett-Reis and Sharon Bottock—but I noted that I would consider any relevant depositions in deciding whether to impose sanctions. On January 24, 2014, Counsel requested a substantial extension of time to respond to my supplemental order, which I granted. On April 21, 2014, Counsel responded to my supplemental order to show cause. My chambers later contacted Counsel to set this matter for telephonic hearing. Counsel requested another one-month delay, which I granted. Counsel filed an additional brief on July 9, 2014, and the hearing was finally held on July 17, 2014. During the hearing, I requested that Counsel follow up with an e-mail suggesting an appropriate sanction, should I decide to impose one. On July 21, 2014, Counsel’s partner sent an e-mail to me declining to suggest a sanction, and urging me not to impose sanctions.
After reviewing Counsel’s submissions, I find that Counsel’s conduct during depositions warrants sanctions. I discuss below the basis for imposing sanctions and the particular sanction that I deem appropriate in this case.
“It is well established that a federal court may consider collateral issues [like sanctions] after an action is no longer pending.” Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990). Because Counsel’s deposition conduct is at issue here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 applies. Rule 30(d)(2) provides: “The court may impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.” Rule 30(d)(2) does not limit the types of sanctions available; it only requires that the sanctions be “appropriate.” See Francisco v. Verizon S., Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 705, 712 (E.D. Va. 2010), aff’d, 442 F. App’x 752 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Although Rule 30(d)(2) does not define the phrase ‘appropriate sanction,’ the imposition of discovery sanctions is generally within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted)).
District courts also have a “‘well-acknowledged’ inherent power . . . to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation practices.” Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980). “A primary aspect of that [power] is the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991). “[T]he inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which sanction the same conduct.” Id. at 49.
9 The fact that SNB’s lawyers did not move for sanctions further suggests that lawyers have simply become numb to obstructionist discovery tactics, either because they are used to them, they choose to take the high ground, or perhaps because they use such tactics themselves. (After observing SNB’s lead lawyer at trial, I seriously doubt the latter.) Based on my 39 years as a member of the federal bar, I surmise that SNB’s lawyer did not move for sanctions because he has other enterobacter sakazakii cases against Counsel and did not want to undermine his ongoing relationship with Counsel by seeking sanctions. This rationale makes particular sense in a case like this where all of the information SNB’s lawyer needed to prove SNB’s manufacturing and product defect claim resided with Abbott and Counsel, and where there was no other avenue to obtaining case-critical information.
The rule also explicitly authorizes the court to impose the cost resulting from obstructive tactics that unreasonably prolong a deposition on the person engaged in such obstruction. This sanction may be imposed on a non-party witness as well as a party or attorney, but is otherwise congruent with Rule 26(g).
sanctions under Rule 30(d), I would retain the authority to sanction Counsel under my inherent power. See In re Itel Sec. Litig., 791 F.2d 672, 675 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Sanctions may also be awarded sua sponte under the court’s inherent power.” (citing Roadway Exp., 447 U.S. at 765)).
Chambers, or any other decision cited by the parties, that the Supreme Court intended this ‘bad faith’ requirement to limit the application of monetary sanctions under the inherent power.” (internal citations and footnote omitted)). Still, while I need not find bad faith before imposing sanctions, I find it difficult to believe that Counsel could, in good faith, engage in the conduct outlined in this opinion.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “review[s] the imposition of discovery sanctions for an abuse of discretion.” Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 384 F. App’x 531, 532 (8th Cir. 2010).
In defending depositions related to this case, Counsel proliferated hundreds of unnecessary objections and interruptions during the examiner’s questioning. Most of these objections completely lacked merit and often ended up influencing how the witnesses responded to questions. In particular, Counsel engaged in three broad categories of improper conduct. First, Counsel interposed an astounding number of “form” objections, many of which stated no recognized basis for objection. Second, Counsel repeatedly objected and interjected in ways that coached the witness to give a particular answer or to unnecessarily quibble with the examiner. Finally, Counsel excessively interrupted the depositions that Counsel defended, frustrating and delaying the fair examination of witnesses. I will address each category of conduct in turn.
10 I calculated this number based on the number of deposition pages that actually contained testimony, excluding pages like the title page, etc.
frequency while defending other depositions, too. Sometimes Counsel followed these “form” objections with a particular basis for objection, like “speculation” or “narrative.” Other times, Counsel simply objected to “form,” requiring the reader (and, presumably, the examiner) to guess as to the objection’s basis.
Q. Would it be fair to say that in your career, work with human milk fortifier has been a significant part of your job?
COUNSEL: Object to the form of the question. “Significant,” it’s vague and ambiguous. You can answer it.
A. Yeah, I can’t really say it’s been a significant part. It’s been a part of my job, but “significant” is rather difficult because I have a wide range of things that I do there.
Q. Are there certain levels that one can get, that have catwalks or some similar apparatus so I can get to the dryer?
A. The dryer is totally enclosed. You cannot get into the dryer from any of the levels.
Q. Can I get on the outside of the dryer?
11 In reproducing portions of the deposition transcripts for this opinion, I occasionally change the notation identifying the speaker for reasons of anonymity, consistency, and ease of reading. For example, I do not use Counsel’s name, which appears in the transcripts. I also use “A.” to indicate a witness’s answer, whereas some of the transcripts use the phrase “the witness.” The words used by the speakers, however, remain unaltered.
COUNSEL: Object to the form of the question; outside of the dryer? Everything is—I mean, outside of the dryer is a huge expanse of space; anything that’s not inside the dryer is outside the dryer, so I object to it as vague and ambiguous. Object to the form of the question.
Q. Are you familiar with the term “immunocompromised”?
(Barrett-Reis Depo. 54:15-21). (In case there is any doubt, non sequitur is not a proper objection.) But, whatever their purpose, Counsel’s “form” objections rarely, if ever, followed a truly objectionable question.
12 In response to my order to show cause, Counsel claims that “the question was misleading, confusing, vague and ambiguous[,]” and that it “call[ed] for a medical opinion or conclusion” (docket no. 193, at 13). None of these reasons relate to Counsel’s original claim that the question was a non sequitur. But, in any event, there is absolutely nothing confusing about the question, nor does it call for a medical conclusion (the witness held a PhD in nutritional science, though). This litany of adjectives— “misleading, confusing, vague and ambiguous”—are all too common in federal depositions and roll too easily and too frequently off the lips of lawyers who engage in repeated obstructionist conduct. Multiple objections like this are often a harbinger of obstructionist lawyers. That Counsel would cite those objections in “defense” of Counsel’s conduct suggests very strongly that Counsel just doesn’t get it, and further undermines Counsel’s claim of good faith. That these objections are part of an oft-used litigation strategy does not suggest that Counsel made them in good faith.
ground for objection, nor does it preserve any objection. Instead, “form” objections refer to a category of objections, which includes objections to “leading questions, lack of foundation, assuming facts not in evidence, mischaracterization or misleading question, non-responsive answer, lack of personal knowledge, testimony by counsel, speculation, asked and answered, argumentative question, and witness’ answers that were beyond the scope of the question.” NGM Ins. Co. v. Walker Const. & Dev., LLC, No. 1:11-CV-146, 2012 WL 6553272, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 13, 2012). At trial, when I asked Counsel to define what “form” objections entail, Counsel gave an even broader definition. Counsel first stated simply, “I know it when I hear it.” Counsel then settled on the barely narrower definition that “form” objections include “anything that can be remedied at the time of the deposition so that you do not waive the objection if the deposition is used at a hearing or trial.” Given that “form” may refer to any number of objections, saying “form” to challenge a leading question is as useful as saying “exception” to admit an excited utterance.
An objection at the time of the examination—whether to evidence, to a party’s conduct, to the officer’s qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner.
While objections may, under the revised rule, be made during a deposition, they ordinarily should be limited to those that under Rule 32(d)(3) might be waived if not made at that time, i.e., objections on grounds that might be immediately obviated, removed, or cured, such as to the form of a question or the responsiveness of an answer.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, advisory committee notes (1993 amendments) (emphasis added).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B) (emphasis added). Together, these rules provide that any objection to the form of a question must be made on the record at a deposition, or that objection is waived.
vague as to time, misstates the record, etc.). This process alerts the questioner to the alleged defect, and affords an opportunity to cure the objection.
Rakes v. Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am., No. C06-0099, 2008 WL 429060, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 14, 2008); see also Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Serrano, No. 11-2075-JAR, 2012 WL 28071, at *5 (D. Kan. Jan. 5, 2012) (“Although the [rules] talk about objections based on the ‘form’ of the question (or responsiveness of the answer), this does not mean that an objection may not briefly specify the nature of the form objection (e.g. ‘compound,’ ‘leading,’ ‘assumes facts not in evidence’).”). I would go further, however, and note that lawyers are required, not just permitted, to state the basis for their objections.
Moreover, “form” objections are inefficient and frustrate the goals underlying the Federal Rules. The Rules contemplate that objections should be concise and afford the examiner the opportunity to cure the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (noting that “objection[s] must be stated concisely”); id., advisory committee notes (1993 amendments) (noting that “[d]epositions frequently have been unduly prolonged . . . by lengthy objections and colloquy” and that objections “ordinarily should be limited to those . . . grounds that might be immediately obviated, removed, or cured, such as to the form of a question”). While unspecified “form” objections are certainly concise, they do nothing to alert the examiner to a question’s alleged defect. Because they lack specificity, “form” objections do not allow the examiner to immediately cure the objection. Instead, the examiner must ask the objector to clarify, which takes more time and increases the amount of objection banter between the lawyers. Briefly stating the particular ground for the objection, on the other hand, is no less concise and allows the examiner to ask a remedial question without further clarification.
[U]nless an objector states with some specificity the nature of his objection, rather than mimicking the general language of the rule, i.e., “objection to the form of the question,” it is impossible to determine, based upon the transcript of the deposition itself, whether the objection was proper when made or merely frivolous.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Theiss, 729 A.2d 965, 976 (Md. 1999). When called upon to rule on an unspecified “form” objection, a judge either must be clairvoyant or must guess as to the objection’s basis. Neither option is particularly realistic or satisfying. This is reason enough to require a specific objection.
Requiring lawyers to state the basis for their objections is not the same thing as requiring “speaking objections” in which lawyers amplify or argue the basis for their objections. For example, “Objection, hearsay” is a proper objection. By contrast, “Objection, the last assertion by Mr. Jones was an out-of-court statement by Ms. Day, said in the hotel room, that Mr. Jones allegedly heard, that he never testified to in a deposition, and that is now being offered for the truth of Ms. Day’s statement” is an improper speaking objection. I have always required the former and barred the latter.
‘objection as to form’ must say only those four words, unless the questioner asks the objector to state a reason.”); Turner v. Glock, Inc., No. CIV.A. 1:02CV825, 2004 WL 5511620, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2004) (“All other objections to questions during an oral deposition must be limited to ‘Objection, leading’ and ‘Objection, form.’ These particular objections are waived if not stated as phrased above during the oral deposition.”); Auscape Int’l v. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y, No. 02 CIV. 6441(LAK), 2002 WL 31014829, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2002) (“Once counsel representing any party states, ‘Objection’ following a question, then all parties have preserved all possible objections to the form of the question unless the objector states a particular ground or grounds of objection, in which case that ground or those grounds alone are preserved.”); In re St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 1396, 2002 WL 1050311, at *5 (D. Minn. May 24, 2002) (“Objecting counsel shall say simply the word ‘objection’, and no more, to preserve all objections as to form.”).13 For the reasons discussed above, I think this approach makes little legal or practical sense.
13 The record contains no indication that Counsel knew of, or relied on, these, or similar cases when Counsel made “form” objections during depositions. Counsel did not claim to know of these cases, or similar lines of authority, at the time Counsel made the “form” objections, in Counsel’s response to either of my show-cause orders, or at the sanctions hearing.
in this case, lawyers should consider themselves warned: Unspecified “form” objections are improper and will invite sanctions if lawyers choose to use them in the future.
The Federal Rules of Evidence contain no provision allowing lawyers to interrupt the trial testimony of a witness to make a statement. Such behavior should likewise be prohibited at depositions, since it tends to obstruct the taking of the witness’s testimony. It should go without saying that lawyers are strictly prohibited from making any comments, either on or off the record, which might suggest or limit a witness’s answer to an unobjectionable question.
Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525, 530-31 (E.D. Pa. 1993); see also Specht v. Google, Inc., 268 F.R.D. 596, 598 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (“Objections that are argumentative or that suggest an answer to a witness are called ‘speaking objections’ and are improper under Rule 30(c)(2).”).
objected that questions were “vague,” called for “speculation,” were “ambiguous,” or were “hypothetical.” These objections usually followed completely reasonable questions.
Q. Is there—do you believe that there’s—if there’s any kind of a correlation that could be drawn from OAL environmental samples to the quality of the finished product?
COUNSEL: Objection; vague and ambiguous.
A. That would be speculation.
Q. Well, if there were high numbers of OAL, Eb samples in the factory, wouldn’t that be a cause for concern about the microbiological quality of the finished product?
COUNSEL: Object to the form of the question. It’s a hypothetical; lacks facts.
A. Yeah, those are hypotheticals.
Q. Would that be a concern of yours?
A. Not going to answer.
Q. You’re not going to answer?
A. Yeah, I mean, it’s speculation. It would be guessing.
COUNSEL: You don’t have to guess.
the [witness] subsequently adopts his lawyer’s coaching and complains of the broadness of the question . . . .”); Cordova v. United States, No. CIV.05 563 JB/LFG, 2006 WL 4109659, at *3 (D.N.M. July 30, 2006) (awarding sanctions based on a lawyer’s deposition coaching because “it became impossible to know if [a witness’s] answers emanated from her own line of reasoning or whether she adopted [the] lawyer’s reasoning from listening to his objections”).
Q. . . . Isn’t [J.M.K.’s mother] saying that every time she used a bottle she boiled it first?
COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would just object that in the—it’s not clear from the context of this one page or several pages what it is they’re talking about in terms of which feedings, if he can point it out to him.
THE COURT: And so what is the nature of that objection? I haven’t ever heard that one before.
THE COURT: Well, it may be confusing to you, but he didn’t ask the question to you. He asked it of the witness.
COUNSEL: Okay. Might be confusing to the witness.
THE COURT: Yeah, that’s suggesting an answer which is exactly the problem I had with your depositions.
COUNSEL: I would just object to the form of the question then, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s not a proper objection, so it’s overruled.
A. As I read this, I can’t be certain as to what exactly she’s referring to at what point here.
Once again, after Counsel’s objection suggested that the question “might” confuse the witness, the witness replied that he “[couldn’t] be certain” as to what was being asked.
Q. . . . I’m wondering if you could perhaps in a . . . little bit less technical language explain to me what they’re talking about in that portion of the exhibit.
COUNSEL: Object to the form of the question.
Q. Could you tell me what they’re saying here?
Q. So it—that’s what they’re talking about, the two types, the finished product and the overs? Does it separate those two things?
14 Here, Counsel reinterprets the question for the witness—an issue that I address below.
Q. I mean, is it too big?
(Bottock Depo. 58:20 to 59:25). Note the witness’s first answer in this colloquy: So rephrase. The witness’s language makes clear that she is requesting—actually, commanding—the examiner to rephrase based on Counsel’s objection.
question. And the lawyer certainly shouldn’t suggest a response. If the witness needs clarification, the witness may ask the deposing lawyer for clarification. A lawyer’s purported lack of understanding is not a proper reason to interrupt a deposition.”).
objected or otherwise interjected during [the examiner’s] questioning of the deponent at least 49 times though the deposition lasted only an hour and a half. Indeed, approximately 60 percent of the pages of the transcript contain such interruptions. Many of these were objections as to form, which are waived if not made at the deposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B), but on numerous occasions [the lawyer’s] objections appeared to have no basis. . . . Moreover, after 21 of [the lawyer’s] objections as to form, the deponent asked for clarification or claimed he did not understand the question. . . . [The lawyer] objected as to form, and the deponent then stated he did not understand the question, subsequently asking that it be narrowed.
Such interplay clearly did hamper the free flow of the deposition. Rather than answer [the examiner’s] questions to the best of his ability, the deponent hesitated, asking for clarification of apparently unambiguous questions. . . . In addition, the deponent asked for such clarifications almost exclusively after [the lawyer] objected or interrupted in some fashion.
the examiner was able to finish the deposition. Id. at *4. The court warned, however, that “a repeat performance [would] result in sanctions.” Id.
Like the lawyer in Phillips, Counsel’s endless “vague” and “form” objections (and their variants described above) frustrated the free flow of the depositions Counsel defended. They frequently induced witnesses to request clarification to otherwise unambiguous questions. Counsel’s “form” objections also emboldened witnesses to quibble about the legal basis for certain questions—e.g., “That would be speculation”— and to stonewall the examiner—e.g., “Not going to answer.” In short, these objections were suggestive and amounted to witness coaching, thereby violating Rule 30.
Q. Are these the ingredients that are added after preparation or after pasteurization?
COUNSEL: If you know. Don’t guess.
A. If you could rephrase the question. There’s no ingredients on 28.
COUNSEL: So you can’t answer the question.
Q. If it’s high enough to kill bacteria, why does Abbott prior to that go through a process of pasteurization?
COUNSEL: If you know, and you’re not a production person so don’t feel like you have to guess.
Q. Does it describe the heat treatment that you referred to a few moments ago, the heat treatment that occurs in the dryer phase?
COUNSEL: Okay. Do you know his question? He’s asking you if this is what you’re describing.
A. Yeah, I don’t know.
Q. . . . Is there any particular reason that that language is stated with respect to powdered infant formula?
COUNSEL: If you know. Don’t—if you know.
A. No, I—no, not to my knowledge.
COUNSEL: If you know. I mean, do you know or not know?
(Barrett-Reis Depo. 49:10-18). These responses are unsurprising. When a lawyer tells a witness to answer “if you know,” it not-so-subtly suggests that the witness may not know the answer, inviting the witness to dodge or qualify an otherwise clear question. For this reason, “[i]nstructions to a witness that they may answer a question ‘if they know’ or ‘if they understand the question’ are raw, unmitigated coaching, and are never appropriate.” Serrano, 2012 WL 28071, at *5; see also Specht, 268 F.R.D. at 599 (“Mr. Fleming egregiously violated Rule 30(c)(2) by instructing Mr. Murphy not to answer a question because his answer would be a ‘guess.’”); Oleson v. Kmart Corp., 175 F.R.D. 560, 567 (D. Kan. 1997) (noting that an attorney violated Rule 30 when he “interrupted [a] deposition in mid-question, objected to the assumption of facts by the witness, and advised the witness that he was not obligated to assume facts”).
Q. To what extent do you have knowledge of the testing procedures that Abbott employs in raw materials or the environment, the plant environment or final product?
A. Very limited knowledge, again, because that would be product development.
(Barrett-Reis Depo. 20:16 to 21:2).
Q. . . . Do you know when that occurs or does it occur on a regular basis?
A. On an annual basis, the time may vary when we close the facility to fumigate.
Q. At any rate, you’ll see that on both the first page of Exhibit 22 and the first page of Exhibit 23, there’s a picture of the product, and both of them have the word “NeoSure” on the product. Would you be able to tell me what the difference between those two products is?
COUNSEL: Well, he said difference between the products. It lacks foundation that there’s a difference between the products.
Q. There may not be. I don’t know. Can you tell me?
COUNSEL: Well, the question is—I object to the form of the question. He’s not asking you just about the label. He’s asking you is there a difference in the product. So can you answer that?
Q. For that particular infant who is not premature, like in this case was a twin, do you believe that NeoSure is an appropriate version of powdered infant formula?
COUNSEL: Object to the form. Lack of foundation in terms of what this baby—whether this baby was preterm or not. It’s not in evidence in this deposition nor in the record anyplace. And I object to the form of the question as calling for speculation.
A. I can’t answer it without more information.
COUNSEL: If you know. She didn’t write this.
A. Yes, I didn’t write this.
Q. Okay. The part that counsel just read, is that basically an accurate summary of the process?
Q. . . . And then under “Follow-Up Test” for Eb it’s essentially the same thing as E. sak negative; right?
Q. But which would—that would be the same type of finding if it said E. sak negative; right?
A. It’s zero. There’s no Eb.
Q. My question is, was that a test—do you know if that test was performed in Casa Grande or Columbus?
COUNSEL: Yes, you do. Read it.
A. Yes, the micro—the batch records show finished micro testing were acceptable for the batch in question.
proper need for the witness’s own lawyer to act as an intermediary, interpreting questions, deciding which questions the witness should answer, and helping the witness to formulate answers. The witness comes to the deposition to testify, not to indulge in a parody of Charlie McCarthy, with lawyers coaching or bending the witness’s words to mold a legally convenient record. It is the witness—not the lawyer—who is the witness.
Hall, 150 F.R.D. at 528 (footnote omitted); see also Alexander v. F.B.I., 186 F.R.D. 21, 52-53 (D.D.C. 1998) (noting that “[i]t is highly inappropriate for counsel for the witness to provide the witness with responses to deposition questions by means of an objection” or to “rephrase or alter the question” asked of the witness); Panken & Valbrune, supra, at 16 (“[C]ounsel is not permitted to state on the record an interpretation of questions, because those interpretations are irrelevant and are often suggestive of a particularly desired answer.”).
In many places during the depositions of Abbott witnesses . . . where it was clear that the plaintiff’s counsel was on the wrong track factually . . . defense counsel attempted to steer him to the correct ground. When things got bogged down, hours in, defense counsel also attempted to speed up the process by helping to clarify or facilitate things, for which the plaintiff’s counsel seemed appreciative.
Counsel’s commentary during depositions were objections, not benign attempts to clarify. Because this commentary coached witnesses to give particular answers, I find that sanctions are appropriate.
Beyond the “form” objections and witness coaching, Counsel’s interruptions while defending depositions were grossly excessive. Counsel’s name appears at least 92 times in the transcript of the Barrett-Reis deposition (about once per page), and 381 times in the transcript of the Bottock deposition (approaching three times per page). Counsel’s name appears with similar frequency in the other depositions that Counsel defended. And, as I noted earlier, nearly all of Counsel’s objections and interruptions are unnecessary and unwarranted.
These excessive and unnecessary interruptions are an independent reason to impose sanctions. The notes accompanying Rule 30 provide that sanctions may be appropriate “when a deposition is unreasonably prolonged” and that “[t]he making of an excessive number of unnecessary objections may itself constitute sanctionable conduct . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, advisory committee notes (1993 amendments); see also Craig, 384 F. App’x at 533 (“The notes also explain that an excessive number of unnecessary objections may constitute actionable conduct, though the objections be not argumentative or suggestive.”). At least two courts in this circuit have imposed sanctions based, in part, on a lawyer’s excessive and unnecessary objections during depositions. See id. (affirming a monetary sanction against a lawyer who made “a substantial number of argumentative objections together with suggestive objections” that “impeded, delayed, or frustrated [a] deposition”); Van Pilsum v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 152 F.R.D. 179, 181 (S.D. Iowa 1993) (sanctioning a lawyer who had “no justification for . . . monopoliz[ing] 20% of his client’s deposition” and whose objections “were for the most part groundless, and were only disputatious grandstanding”).
By interposing many unnecessary comments, clarifications, and objections, Counsel impeded, delayed, and frustrated the fair examination of witnesses during the depositions Counsel defended. Thus, sanctions are independently appropriate based on Counsel’s excessive interruptions.
15 For examples of outside-the-box discovery sanctions, see the following cases: St. Paul Reinsurance Co., 198 F.R.D. at 518 (imposing a write-a-bar-journal-article sanction); R.E. Linder Steel Erection Co., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 102 F.R.D. 39, 41 (D. Md. 1983) (imposing a $5.00-per-inturruption sanction); Huggins v. Coatesville Area Sch. Dist., No. CIV.A. 07-4917, 2009 WL 2973044, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2009) (imposing a sit-down-and-share-a-meal-together sanction).
changing improper tactics that modern litigators are trained to use. See Matthew L. Jarvey, Note, Boilerplate Discovery Objections: How They Are Used, Why They Are Wrong, and What We Can Do About Them, 61 DRAKE L. REV. 913, 931-36 (2013) (discussing the importance of unorthodox sanctions in deterring discovery abuse).
16 I am not the first judge to suggest a video-related sanction. In Florida Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So. 3d 35, 41 n.4 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court noted that law students and members of the Florida bar could view footage of a videotaped deposition in which a later-suspended lawyer behaved unprofessionally toward his opposing counsel as part of a course on professionalism.
providing these lawyers with notice of and access to the video, Counsel must file in this court, under seal, (1) an affidavit certifying that Counsel complied with this order and received no assistance (other than technical help or help from the lawyer appearing in the video) in creating the video’s content and (2) a copy of the e-mail notifying the appropriate lawyers in Counsel’s firm about the video. The lawyer appearing in the video need not state during the video that he or she agrees with this opinion, or that Counsel was the lawyer whose deposition conduct prompted this sanction. Counsel need not make the video publicly available to anyone outside Counsel’s firm. Failure to comply with this order within 90 days may result in additional sanctions.
To be clear, had Counsel made only a handful of improper objections or comments while taking depositions, I would not have raised these issues sua sponte. Depositions can be stressful and contentious, and lawyers are bound to make the occasional improper objection. But Counsel’s improper objections, coaching, and interruptions went far beyond what judges should tolerate of any lawyer, let alone one as experienced and skilled as Counsel. Counsel’s baseless interjections and obstructionist commentary were ubiquitous; they pervaded the depositions in this case and even spilled over into the trial. It is the repeated nature of Counsel’s obstructionist deposition conduct that warrants sanctions here.
Finally, I note that, despite Counsel’s deposition conduct, I was greatly impressed by how Counsel performed at trial. Unlike the “litigators” I discussed earlier, Counsel was extremely well-prepared, had clearly mastered the facts of this case, and did a great job of incorporating electronic evidence into Counsel’s direct- and cross-examinations. Those aspects of Counsel’s noteworthy trial skills, expertise, and preparation are laudable, but they do not excuse Counsel’s pretrial conduct.
If Counsel appeals this sanctions order I will, sua sponte, automatically stay it pending the appeal.
For the reasons stated in this opinion, I find that sanctions are appropriate in response to Counsel’s improper deposition conduct, which impeded, delayed, and frustrated the fair examination of witnesses in the depositions related to this case that Counsel defended. I therefore impose the sanction described above.
DATED this 28th day of July, 2014.
Do you think Judge Bennett’s order was too easy on this attorney, too strict, or just about right. Why or why not? What do you think about the judge not even naming the attorney? Is that appropriate in a sanctions order? Do you think this kind of discovery misconduct could have had an impact on the outcome of the case? Was it fair to the plaintiff, who lost this very serious case? Does this become grounds for a new trial or appeal? What do you think? Please leave a comment below.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 10th, 2014 at 5:30 pm and is filed under Lawyers Duties, Spoliation/Sanctions.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.