To be deposed or not..

Clark1961

Clark1961

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,737
Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
I'm thinking not. F'n lawyers...
 
I've been deposed a couple of times, but despised a lot more.
 
Usually it's not optional.
 
Just answer every question with: 'I have no recollection of this Sir'.
 
If they want to interview you, they don't have a court reporter to type a transcript of everything that is said. Instead, lawyers break out tape recorders. You should record it, too. You can have your lawyer present with you.

If they want to depose you, it is more formal, a court reporter is present, they will still have tape recorders (as should you) and you can still have your lawyer present with you.

Having your lawyer with you will help a lot by interceding on your behalf during questioning. Their objective (IMO) is to find weaknesses in your testimony, so they can fine-tune their questions to you in court (whether or not to ask a certain question or to phrase it differently from during the deposition) and sadly, to re-phrase a question in court to try to elicit a different response from you, so they can then show the jury you "gave a different answer to that 'same' question in the deposition."

OTOH, I have had times when the lawyers for the opposing side decide not to call me to the stand after reviewing my testimony in a deposition.

...being a witness in litigation or criminal proceding can certainly be a PITA.

I'm no lawyer, though. ...just a highly opionated retired cop. :)
 
Been there, done that. Not particularly pleasant, and depending on your relationship to the case, you have to be on your game, and feel free to privately conference with your attorney prior to answering any given question.
 
I certainly wouldn't do it voluntarily, but in most cases you won't have a choice. If you're out of state, you can make it more difficult for them, though, by forcing them to get a valid subpoena (unless the case is pending in federal court, which is much easier in terms of out of state subpoenas).
 
It's a litigation about an injury caused by a piece of electrical equipment failing in a non-nice away. One of the sides wants to talk to depose me as a knowledgeable witness of the incident. I think they are wasting my time and their's since I am not an expert about the equipment and all I can really say is I sent the injured person to the hospital.

Now then why do some folks jump to negative conclusions just because someone might be asked to give a deposition?
 
Clark1961 said:
It's a litigation about an injury caused by a piece of electrical equipment failing in a non-nice away. One of the sides wants to talk to depose me as a knowledgeable witness of the incident. I think they are wasting my time and their's since I am not an expert about the equipment and all I can really say is I sent the injured person to the hospital.

Now then why do some folks jump to negative conclusions just because someone might be asked to give a deposition?
Click to expand...

Usually, when it's brought up as an issue, it's normally a negative one. It sounds like in your case though it's no big deal other than a possible waste of your time.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Usually, when it's brought up as an issue, it's normally a negative one. It sounds like in your case though it's no big deal other than a possible waste of your time.
Click to expand...
It is a waste of my time. I didn't see the actual incident but was there shortly afterwards. I got the injured guy moving towards the hospital and looked at what failed in the equipment 'cause we had over a hundred identical units in service. The injured guy came into contact with about 480 volts when a capacitor failed. Remember to follow the rules when working around electrical stuff guys. Also don't let someone stand around talking about it after getting a serious shock. People tend to die as the body starts resetting it's chemistry.
 
Clark1961 said:
It's a litigation about an injury caused by a piece of electrical equipment failing in a non-nice away. One of the sides wants to talk to depose me as a knowledgeable witness of the incident. I think they are wasting my time and their's since I am not an expert about the equipment and all I can really say is I sent the injured person to the hospital.
Click to expand...
First, if it's a deposition, as others said, you may not have much choice. It depends. Are they asking you if you are willing at this point? That's sometimes a clue that they are looking for cooperation and might go elsewhere if they don't have it. That's not often the case but if they are looking to you as a "knowledgeable" witness you never know. That's just speculation of course since I know nothing about the case, the people, or the lawyers.

Second, you would probably be surprised at the number of people I have deposed or called as witnesses who said they knew nothing helpful but who were in fact extremely helpful. In many cases, they were the ones who had some apparently inconsequential piece that made an entire puzzle complete. An interview or deposition is rarely a waste of time for the attorneys, even if all the get is knowledge of what is not there.

For the deponent, though, it can be a different story, although my experience indicates that witnesses who are simple, factual and don't try to color what they say based on what they think would be helpful (or not) get away pretty much unscathed, except for being tired. Of course, some attorneys are complete a-holes and feel they are not doing their job unless they make even friendly people and everyone in the process uncomfortable.
 
midlifeflyer said:
...but true. Given ignorance, I think most of us are far more willing to believe something negative than positive.
Click to expand...
Over time perhaps we can learn to remain neutral when we are ignorant of facts. Of course learning to admit ignorance is a big hurdle for many...
 
midlifeflyer said:
First, if it's a deposition, as others said, you may not have much choice. It depends. Are they asking you if you are willing at this point? That's sometimes a clue that they are looking for cooperation and might go elsewhere if they don't have it. That's not often the case but if they are looking to you as a "knowledgeable" witness you never know. That's just speculation of course since I know nothing about the case, the people, or the lawyers.

Second, you would probably be surprised at the number of people I have deposed or called as witnesses who said they knew nothing helpful but who were in fact extremely helpful. In many cases, they were the ones who had some apparently inconsequential piece that made an entire puzzle complete. An interview or deposition is rarely a waste of time for the attorneys, even if all the get is knowledge of what is not there.

For the deponent, though, it can be a different story, although my experience indicates that witnesses who are simple, factual and don't try to color what they say based on what they think would be helpful (or not) get away pretty much unscathed, except for being tired. Of course, some attorneys are complete a-holes and feel they are not doing their job unless they make even friendly people and everyone in the process uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I shared a lot of info with the lawyers but they will need experts to strengthen their case. They are going to demand my time without compensating me which is strike one, strike two is they will be compensated, strike three is they consider interviewing me as doing their homework when they should be doing their own work. Anything I tell them about equipment design standards is just hearsay, they should have read that stuff before even filing the case so they could get their compliant properly formed.
 
Clark1961 said:
Over time perhaps we can learn to remain neutral when we are ignorant of facts. Of course learning to admit ignorance is a big hurdle for many...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, people think being ignorant is a bad thing. It's not. It just means not having information or knowledge. Even more unfortunately, the same view means we pretend to know and don't try to fix it by gaining knowledge or information. That's the bad thing.
 
This is a zero-sum endeavor for you; doesn't sound like you can come out of it bettered in any way; and you're gonna at least have to use some leave or personal time? If you don't take a lawyer, at least talk to one in advance.
 
Only 5 answers you need to know.
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. I don't know
  4. I don't understand the question
  5. Could you repeat the question
Do not elaborate. Do not give them anything to work with. You will find out how stupid lawyers are when they start asking asinine redundant questions.
 
Getonit said:
Only 5 answers you need to know.
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. I don't know
  4. I don't understand the question
  5. Could you repeat the question
Do not elaborate. Do not give them anything to work with. You will find out how stupid lawyers are when they start asking asinine redundant questions.
Click to expand...
It's not that lawyers are necessarily stupid, it's the system that has evolved has honored following rules (because that can be verified) rather than honoring truth (which often can't be verified). It is what it is.

I have no exposure right now in the case but if asked to give sworn testimony I will be less than helpful.
 
Clark1961 said:
Now then why do some folks jump to negative conclusions just because someone might be asked to give a deposition?
Click to expand...

Because it involves lawyers . . . And few people other than other lawyers respect most of the breed as much as they respect used car salesmen. And THAT is the fault of the lawyers . . .
 
Getonit said:
Only 5 answers you need to know.
  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. I don't know
  4. I don't understand the question
  5. Could you repeat the question
Do not elaborate. Do not give them anything to work with. You will find out how stupid lawyers are when they start asking asinine redundant questions.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised at the number of times stupid redundant questions elicit even stupider contradictory answers.

Btw, which of your 5 answers "what is your name?" truthfully.
 
After my first request to be deposed, a lawyer on our staff told me there are two rules regarding a deposition. First, if you're going to tell a lie, make it a simple one. Second, there are NO simple lies.

I keep it simple and treat the attorneys like I was explaining engineering to my Grandma. Any attempt to go any deeper would be painful so I never do.

Cheers
 
midlifeflyer said:
You might be surprised at the number of times stupid redundant questions elicit even stupider contradictory answers.

Btw, which of your 5 answers "what is your name?" truthfully.
Click to expand...

But if the question is: "Can you state your name and address for the record?" Number 1 works. :D
 
X3 Skier said:
After my first request to be deposed, a lawyer on our staff told me there are two rules regarding a deposition. First, if you're going to tell a lie, make it a simple one. Second, there are NO simple lies.
Click to expand...
The person being deposed was living with his girlfriend but figured that wouldn't sound good, so, somewhere about the 3rd or 4th question...

Q: Are you married?
A: Yes.
Q: How long have you been married?
[Long Silence]

It happens just that fast.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The person being deposed was living with his girlfriend but figured that wouldn't sound good, so, somewhere about the 3rd or 4th question...

Q: Are you married?
A: Yes.
Q: How long have you been married?
[Long Silence]

It happens just that fast.
Click to expand...

That question would trip up a lot of men.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The person being deposed was living with his girlfriend but figured that wouldn't sound good, so, somewhere about the 3rd or 4th question...

Q: Are you married?
A: Yes.
Q: How long have you been married?
[Long Silence]

It happens just that fast.
Click to expand...
Correct response is: I don't recall when the requirements for common law were met...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top