Counsel’s ​Disruptive Objections and Testifying For Witness Support Additional, Broadened Deposition

The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel additional deposition testimony of an individual defendant and determined that defendant’s counsel improperly impeded the deposition the first time around. “⁠[Defense counsel] objected to a line of questioning regarding a payment from [a third party], and, instead of stating his objection to the record and allowing his client to answer, he essentially testified for his client . . . . It is also improper to instruct a witness in a deposition not to answer a question until a question is rephrased. Thus, defense counsel’s objections regarding Plaintiff’s ‘compound’ questions were argumentative, disruptive, and unnecessarily delayed the deposition. . . . Instead, [defense counsel] proceeded to initiate an argument over an objection that may be meritorious at trial, but not at a deposition, and wasted the time of everyone involved. . . . Given the improper nature of [defense counsel’s] conduct, the undersigned declines to limit the noticed deposition topics, and, instead finds that the agreed upon three hours of additional time serves as an adequate temporal limit to the breadth of the testimony sought.”

Fitbit, Inc. v. Laguna 2, LLC et al, 3-17-cv-00079 (CAND 2018-05-15, Order) (Kandis A. Westmore)

2018-05-17T12:31:02+00:00May 17th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|