Source: http://www.depo.com/E-letters/TheDiscoveryUpdate/2008/July/Articles/appropriate_objections.html
Timestamp: 2014-07-23 15:40:15
Document Index: 636379420

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2017', '§950', '§990', '§1010', '§1030', '§940', '§980', '§1060', '§1152', '§2025']

Appropriate Objections in a Deposition - Atkinson-Baker Court Reporters
Appropriate Objections in a Deposition By Gordon L. Levinson
Have you ever taken a deposition and had your opponent continually assert inappropriate objections? One after the other: "Irrelevant" "hearsay" "assumes facts not in evidence," "calls for an opinion." Obnoxious, isn't it?
Or worse yet, an attorney makes speaking objections blatantly designed to coach the witness, such as: "Calculated to mislead the jury into believing his side of the story, i.e., that the cardiologist failed to review the abnormal EKG and focused exclusively on the mucus in the lungs, when, in fact, the evidence suggests that the EKG was not conducted until after this witness examined the patient. I instruct the witness not to answer on the grounds that doing so would be prejudicial."
The first thing to remember is that depositions are for conducting discovery. And the scope of permissible discovery includes "any matter not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . [that is] itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Code of Civil Procedure §2017.010.
Therefore, at all times during a deposition, be attuned for questions that seek information that is privileged, not relevant to the subject matter, or that are not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Objections to such questions, if well-taken, are most likely to be proper.
The main thing to remember is that the scope of permissible discovery is very broad. "Reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" means that you are allowed to probe into areas that may themselves not be admissible, if doing so would shed light on other evidence that is admissible. See, Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Therefore, the scope of proper grounds for objecting to questions in a deposition is narrower than at trial.
The balance between the discovery and the burden is taken into consideration by the courts
when looking into irrelevant matter.
For example, it is permissible to ask a deponent questions that call for hearsay, information that might itself be technically irrelevant to an issue or that calls for an opinion, even from a lay witness. The answers to those questions might be inadmissible at trial, but might lead to follow-up questions that uncover admissible evidence. Thus, objections such as "hearsay," "irrelevant" and "calls for an opinion" are generally improper in a deposition.
Case law specifically allows asking questions that call for hearsay in a deposition because it might lead to other admissible evidence. Smith v. Superior Court (Alfred) (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12. Likewise, it is permissible to seek information that is cumulative, so an objection on that ground would be improper. TBG Ins. Services v. Superior Court (Zieminski) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448. The one exception to this general rule involves discovery taken from non-parties, against whom fishing excursions far afield of the issues are not likely to be permitted. Asserting a privilege is a proper objection in a deposition. Such privilege objections include attorney-client (Evid. Code §950), doctor-patient (Evid. Code §990), psychotherapist-patient (Evid. Code §1010), clergy-penitent (Evid. Code §1030), self-incrimination (Evid. Code §940), spousal communications (Evid. Code §980), trade secrets (Evid. Code §1060), tax returns (Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-514), matters discussed in mediation (Evid. Code §1152), and others.
Rephrasing your questions so you can move
on is the best thing to do if your opponent
objects to the form of your questions.
I have seen defense attorneys intimidate plaintiffs and inexperienced plaintiffs' attorneys in depositions by taking out a copy of the complaint and asking the plaintiff to explain the legal contentions. These are improper questions in a deposition and objections to them would be well-taken. See, Rifkind v. Superior Court (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259. Asking the plaintiff questions about factual contentions from the complaint, however, is permissible. I have also seen attorneys instruct their clients not to answer questions following objections. This is only proper if the objection involves a privilege. Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure §2025.460, subdivision (a) actually requires you to object to a question and instruct your client not to answer in order to preserve the privilege objection or it is waived.
Other proper grounds for objection in a deposition include objections to defects in the deposition notice, defects regarding the oath or affirmation, and objections involving misconduct by a party, an attorney for a party or the court reporter. Knowing the difference between proper and improper objections in a deposition will make you a better lawyer. About the Author
Gordon Levinson has successfully represented hundreds of cases in California. A graduate of University of San Francisco School of Law, Gordon now uses his insurance-defense experience representing injured plaintiffs.
For more information, contact the Levinson Law Group at 1-866-643-4878
Article Source	Please contact our Director of Client Services