Episode Details

Today we introduce a new category of episode, based on your fantastic feedback about things you’d like to get out of the podcast. Episodes in this category will be called Objectionable Objections, and each will focus on a single type of improper objection commonly made by lawyers in depositions.

Today’s episode zeroes in on "If you know" speaking objections and its poisonous cousins, "If you remember," "If you understand the question," "Don’t assume," "Don’t speculate," and so on. They'll wreck your depositions if you don't put an immediate stop to them.

Thanks for listening! And please don't forget to return the favor by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you get your podcast. That's how you can show us the love for this completely free, invaluable podcast series.

SHOW NOTES

In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 2020 WL 6687777, Case No. 20 – MD – 2924 (S. D. Fla. November 11, 2020) (Pretrial Order setting Deposition Protocol for Defendant’s Witnesses and Third Parties, and specifically ordering counsel to refrain from “all comments that could be perceived as instructive to a witness, such as “you can answer if you understand the question” or “you can answer if you know”)

Latele Television, C.A. v. Telemundo Communications Group, LLC et al., 2014 WL 5816585, Case No. 12 – 2 539 – CIV (S. D. Florida, November 10, 2014) (“To avoid any ambiguity, the Undersigned considers an “if you know” comment to a deponent before he or she answers a deposition question to usually be improper coaching, designed to signal the witness to answer that he or she does not know or remember the answer”)

Mills et al. v. General Motors LLC, 2017 WL 4279651 Case No. 2:17-201-RMG (D. S. C. September 22, 2017) (court authorizes redeposition of corporate representative, for two additional days, due to counsel’s alleged failure to comply with the rules governing deposition conduct; “Defendant’s counsel made over one hundred speaking objections. Many were leading. For example, Defendant’s counsel repeatedly objected that a question was beyond the scope of the notice and then instructed the witness to answer “if you know”—clearly inviting the witness to answer “I don’t know.” (E.g., id. at 10 (three times).)

Natural-Immunogenics Corp. v. Newport Trial Group , et al. 2017 WL 10562691, case number SACV 15 – 02034 (C. D. California August 7, 2017) (finding that Special Master properly awarded sanctions against lawyer who lodged numerous argumentative and suggestive objections that coached witnesss or rephrased the questions, including “if you know” objections)

AKH Company, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company , Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions 2016 WL 141629, Case No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG (D. Kansas January 12, 2016) (“Outright coaching occurred (e.g., “It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” “Do you know that or are you assuming?” “Are you making an assumption now or are you assuming?” “If you’re not sure or you don’t know, just say so.” “That’s a new question.” Answer “if you know”).

Lund v. Matthews, et al. 2014 WL 517569, No. 8:13CV144, Order Granting Defendants Motion for Sanctions (D. Nebraska Feb. 7, 2014) (sanctions awarded against plaintiff, and redeposition allowed, based in part on improper objections; held, “It is unnecessary to add “to the best of your ability,” “if you know,” or any other commentary after an objection. From review of the deposition transcript, Lund apparently had no difficulties understanding or communicating in English and was capable of seeking clarification or stating he did not know an answer”)

Hunter v.. GEICO General Insurance Company, 2018 WL 4352823, Case No. 17-05070 (B. D. Louisiana Sep. 12, 2018) “An objection that a question is ‘vague’ is usually, and in this instance was, a speaking objection disguised