Code Compliant Demand, Responses and Objections

Effective January 1, 2013 and subject to certain exceptions, the duration of a witness deposition was limited to seven hours of total testimony. (CCP §2025.290(a).) The limitation brought the California statute consistent with existing federal law, which has a similar seven-hour rule. (See FRCP Rule 30(d)(1))


Continue Reading You Don’t Need Exceptional Circumstances to Get More Time to Take a Deposition

There was only one change to the Discovery Codes but it was significant.  The legislature added language to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220 with added requirements when you serve a deposition notice.  The deposition Notice must now contain:

(8)(A) A statement disclosing the existence of a contract, if any is known to the noticing party, between the noticing party or a third party who is financing all or part of the action and either of the following for any service beyond the noticed deposition:

(i)  The deposition officer.

(ii)  The entity providing the services of the deposition officer.

   (B) A statement disclosing that the party noticing the deposition, or a third party financing all or part of the action, directed his or her attorney to use a particular officer or entity to provide services for the deposition, if applicable.


Continue Reading 2016 New Years Resolution–New Requirements for Deposition Notices

young man and young woman with camera

For years, parties have videotaped both the deponent as well as the lawyer asking the questions during a deposition.  The purpose is to provide a split screen video to the jury at trial which would simultaneously show the questioner and the deponent in real time.  But is it permissible?  As demonstrated below, the answer is “No”, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders it upon the showing of good cause.
Continue Reading Can I Videotape Opposing Counsel During a Deposition?

On Monday, September 17, 2012, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 1875 which will limit depositions to one seven (7) hour day. This law conforms with the federal rules and becomes effective on January 1, 2013. The enactment of the legislation will add Section 2025.290 to the Code of Civil Procedure which will read as follows:
Continue Reading GOVERNOR BROWN SIGNS BILL LIMITING DEPOSITIONS TO SEVEN HOURS:

On February 22, 2012 Assemblyman Mike Gatto introduced Assembly Bill 1875 which would add §2025.290 to the California Code of Civil Procedure. If the bill is passed it would limit the time to take a deposition. The proposed new section would read:

Unless otherwise stipulated to or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to one day of seven hours. The court shall allow additional time if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
Continue Reading Can You Take a Deposition in Seven Hours?

Confence call.JPGRan across this helpful blog for taking telephonic depositions by Kramm Court Reporters that I wanted to share with you.

*********************

Everyone is looking for opportunities to save costs these days in litigation. Many attorneys are choosing to take depositions telephonically so as to incur travel costs and to save travel time. Here are some ideas on how to make the telephonic deposition go smoothly.


Continue Reading Tips and Tricks for Taking Telephonic Depositions

The case specifics may provide an opportunity to impeach a witness. This usually arises when a witness (expert or lay witness) has a financial interest in an aspect of the case or in the outcome. The financial interest may go beyond the obvious financial benefit of being retained in the case or being paid to travel first class to the trial. Financial benefit may even go to the opportunity to be retained in other similar cases.
Continue Reading Impeaching the Expert Witness

Perhaps the most effective and most frequently used form of impairing credibility is proof of a statement or conduct by the witness that is inconsistent with the trial testimony. (Ev. C. § 780(h) (pdf)) The inconsistency need not be a complete contradiction. The test is whether the prior statement is inconsistent in effect with the trial testimony. People v. Spencer (1969) 71 Cal.2d 933 (pdf), 941.
Continue Reading Using Prior Inconsistent Statements and Conduct