What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (4 Viewers)

Oh and one other thing. If you read that thread you will see I took a lawyer stance, The judge is operating off a pre-sentencing report that wasn't included. The charge he pled to carried a sentence that included no jail. The DA recommended probation as part of the plea apparently. And her court system emphasizes rehab over jail except in violent cases. So I disagree with the lack of jail time but I see how it happened. Given that this is a child abuse case with a young victim I am not saying money got him off, trouble prosecuting such crimes got him a break.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
When disclosing rule 26 computation of damages, how do you guys prefer to compute pain and suffering damages?

 
NCCommish said:
Zow said:
GroveDiesel said:
Henry Ford said:
GroveDiesel said:
Is this where I come file a grievance when lawyers mess up threads with stuff like "you don't know all the facts of the case"?
Click to expand...
You can try, but it will likely just highlight the fact that you formed an opinion without knowing the facts, in front of a group of lawyers.
Click to expand...
I feel pretty comfortable making a judgment when the defendant actually stipulated in court that he penetrated his 3 year old with his fingers while masturbating.

When the lawyers are left with "the media sometimes screws up the facts of a case" as their only argument, I'm OK with "not knowing all the facts of the case."
Click to expand...
I know you're referencing me, and I'm not sure what exactly it is you want to hear. For some reason, when a lawyer suggests some people pump the brakes on their outrage, it outrages people more and they somehow equate that to defending a particular outcome (the outcome as described by a news outlet). Since I'm within the safety net of the lawyer thread, I can relay the "look at me" fact that I've probably had two dozen or so of my higher profiled criminal cases covered in the media. I've answered some just outside the courtroom canned questions and, much like you see on TV and the movies, have had the evening drink and an "on the record - off the record" with a reporter I trust. I've seen reporters try their best to objectively report on a particular case/hearing/issue I was involved in and fail miserably (after all, there is no legal training so they cannot be expected to get it right). When you mix in a potential agenda, like the article posted in that thread, it just gets even worse.

If you want me to agree that someone who has sexually assaulted two young children deserves a lengthy incarceration, of course I'd agree with you and the zealots in that thread. But I'd be completely burying my head in the sand in doing so in a situation where 1) that isn't what the guy pled to; 2) we're basing this on information from a media articles; and 3) none of us know the underlying circumstances surrounding the plea or what his terms of probation are (likely registration, EHM, etc.).

But hey, if it makes you feel better to get all riled up over a situation in which you lack the facts, and one of your conclusions is that if one throws a bunch of money at a defense attorney they can get out of stuff, even better. I'll be happy to quote a high fee when you or one of your loved ones gets in trouble if that is what gives you the impression that a person is getting away with something.
Click to expand...
You are not even close to pretending that money is meaningless in how justice is dispensed in this country are you?
Click to expand...
You, sir, are correct.

Money in the courthouse is everything.

 
-fish- said:
Zow said:
-fish- said:
Zow said:
When disclosing rule 26 computation of damages, how do you guys prefer to compute pain and suffering damages?
Click to expand...
I start with the pain and then add suffering.
Click to expand...
stupid question?
Click to expand...
nah. for states that still require a computation of non-economic damages, it's actually a difficult question.

I'd just rely on an expert.
Click to expand...
Cool. I put in a bunch of flowery language, listed his injuries, and noted my intent to retain and expert and disclose that information when i get it.

 
Depends on the injuries. Either "within the purview of the jury" or minimum wage for 16 hours a day for the rest of his life.

 
Zow said:
When disclosing rule 26 computation of damages, how do you guys prefer to compute pain and suffering damages?
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao:Plaintiffs' attorneys "calculating" alleged pain and suffering damages. There may be no aspect of law that is more full of utter bull####.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Buckfast 1 said:
Zow said:
When disclosing rule 26 computation of damages, how do you guys prefer to compute pain and suffering damages?
Click to expand...
:lmao: :lmao:Plaintiffs' attorneys "calculating" alleged pain and suffering damages. There may be no aspect of law that is more full of utter bull####.
Click to expand...
Defense attorneys paid by insurers doing the same thing

 
Zow said:
The entire incident is on video. Altercation begins in the bar (due to an ongoing work feud between client and assailant and fact my client put his arm around assailant's wife). Assailant grabs my client's arm and challenges him to a fight. My client makes his way to the exit. As my client is at the exit doors assailant runs up from behind, past security, and lands quite possibly the most vicious uppercut I've ever seen. Assailant has already pled guilty in the criminal court. So, factual disputes are really about what led up to the incident (my client's intoxication, assailant's intoxication, my client's potential provocation, etc.).


Difficulty in the case at the moment is that, in my opinion, the bar probably has some very solid defenses and I'm not confident I can get past a summary judgment. The assailant is presently being back by his insurance, but realistically at any time they could try to indemnify themselves because I'm his insurance coverage doesn't cover this type of behavior (although I've talked to the insurance company and they want to back the assailant as much as they can for good faith business purposes).
Click to expand...
A friend of mine called me today to try to associate me on a fairly similar case, so I'm thinking about it better than I was when we had this discussion.

Is the guy a regular? Find out everything the bar knows about him, get his credit card statements and see how often he goes there. See if he's ever been violent there before, or been in fights.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Henry Ford said:
Zow said:
The entire incident is on video. Altercation begins in the bar (due to an ongoing work feud between client and assailant and fact my client put his arm around assailant's wife). Assailant grabs my client's arm and challenges him to a fight. My client makes his way to the exit. As my client is at the exit doors assailant runs up from behind, past security, and lands quite possibly the most vicious uppercut I've ever seen. Assailant has already pled guilty in the criminal court. So, factual disputes are really about what led up to the incident (my client's intoxication, assailant's intoxication, my client's potential provocation, etc.).


Difficulty in the case at the moment is that, in my opinion, the bar probably has some very solid defenses and I'm not confident I can get past a summary judgment. The assailant is presently being back by his insurance, but realistically at any time they could try to indemnify themselves because I'm his insurance coverage doesn't cover this type of behavior (although I've talked to the insurance company and they want to back the assailant as much as they can for good faith business purposes).
Click to expand...
A friend of mine called me today to try to associate me on a fairly similar case, so I'm thinking about it better than I was when we had this discussion.

Is the guy a regular? Find out everything the bar knows about him, get his credit card statements and see how often he goes there. See if he's ever been violent there before, or been in fights.
Click to expand...
He is (it's a small town, any locals under 50 who socialize are "regulars" there). Definitely want to get the more specific info. I have an interrogatory on this point and I'm looking to lock him into an answer before I go exploring. I'm hoping the bartender will be able to provide some good info here, they pretty much know everyone.

 
Zow said:
Henry Ford said:
Zow said:
The entire incident is on video. Altercation begins in the bar (due to an ongoing work feud between client and assailant and fact my client put his arm around assailant's wife). Assailant grabs my client's arm and challenges him to a fight. My client makes his way to the exit. As my client is at the exit doors assailant runs up from behind, past security, and lands quite possibly the most vicious uppercut I've ever seen. Assailant has already pled guilty in the criminal court. So, factual disputes are really about what led up to the incident (my client's intoxication, assailant's intoxication, my client's potential provocation, etc.).


Difficulty in the case at the moment is that, in my opinion, the bar probably has some very solid defenses and I'm not confident I can get past a summary judgment. The assailant is presently being back by his insurance, but realistically at any time they could try to indemnify themselves because I'm his insurance coverage doesn't cover this type of behavior (although I've talked to the insurance company and they want to back the assailant as much as they can for good faith business purposes).
Click to expand...
A friend of mine called me today to try to associate me on a fairly similar case, so I'm thinking about it better than I was when we had this discussion.

Is the guy a regular? Find out everything the bar knows about him, get his credit card statements and see how often he goes there. See if he's ever been violent there before, or been in fights.
Click to expand...
He is (it's a small town, any locals under 50 who socialize are "regulars" there). Definitely want to get the more specific info. I have an interrogatory on this point and I'm looking to lock him into an answer before I go exploring. I'm hoping the bartender will be able to provide some good info here, they pretty much know everyone.
Click to expand...
If he's a regular there and a hothead, no doubt he's been thrown out before, or at least thrown a punch before - or the bartenders have heard about other fights he's been in. There's your hook for getting the bar to pony up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan said:
Divorce trials are so much............ fun.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine. I get bothered when I'm trying a loss of consortium claim and the defendant really gets aggressive. I don't even want to think about a whole trial filled with nothing but the idiocy of some couple's relationship.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yankee23Fan said:
Divorce trials are so much............ fun.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine. I get bothered when I'm trying a loss of consortium claim and the defendant really gets aggressive. I don't even want to think about a whole trial filled with nothing but the idiocy of some couple's relationship.
Click to expand...
I would love to tell the story on this one and alot of them and I have tried but to take all the chances of identifiers out it turns into - this guy and girl and getting divorce. They did some awful stuff to each other. The case is over now. The end. That's about what they all end up being.

 
Piggybacking on Zow's "sensicle, risk-adverse" discussion in the Law School thread:

There's an attorney I work with sometimes who is the definition of a country lawyer. He wears soft leather shoes, jackets with patches over the elbows, whole nine yards. Very good trial lawyer - he comes off as everyone's grandfather. You can't help but trust him.

Anyway, he likes to make up words. Just on the spot. I call him Shakespeare when he does it, but it's really more Dr. Seuss. It infuriates defense attorneys and witnesses, and juries love it. They're almost always really easy to understand the meaning - like "sensicle" is the kind of neologism he'd use. He also likes to make portmanteaus.

He was questioning a witness about the wood putty he'd used to basically recreate an entire section of a cross beam, which ultimately was too weak and led to the porch roof it was holding up falling on a homeowner. Carpenter was arguing that termites were the cause of the collapse, although there was no evidence of termites that high in the house.

"You use wood putty kinda like spackle, right?"

"Yes"

"So you just wackled a whole section of that crossbar?"

"Uh, yeah, I guess... "

"So that whole three inch section was just some wack-job you threw together on the spot, and the wackle-doo spackle you used crackled, and then Mrs. Smith got whackled on her head, didn't she?"

"No, it was termites..."

Defense attorney: "Objection, your honor, opposing counsel is just making up words."

Shakespeare: "At least I'm not making up facts, your honor. I'll withdraw it. No further questions."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"So that whole three inch section was just some wack-job you threw together on the spot, and the wackle-doo spackle you used crackled, and then Mrs. Smith got whackled on her head, didn't she?" = Gold

 
Henry Ford said:
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
The appropriate Shakespeare reference would be to call him Dogberry.

But that's pretty awesome.
Click to expand...
He's not a moron. He does these things on purpose.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Which leads me to tell the story of when I was a first year defense attorney representing a woman charged with a second time super extreme DUI. Called what I thought was going to be a great eye witness (defense was my client wasn't the one driving and this witness was going to point the finger at another culprit) only to have her flip her story and say awful things about my client and that she was actually the one who wrecked the car (thank God she let me impeach her with her previous statements to my investigator and admit her bias, but I probably should have foreseen given that my client is/was an, um, unlikable human being). Definitely one of the few record-skipping moments of my trial career so far and I had no idea what impact it had on the jury.

Anyway, this was the last witness before closing. I decided to basically recite McCanaughhey's (sp?) "I am young and inexperienced" speech to get across that this woman really just now changed her story and it was a shock.

Jury deliberated very briefly. This is usually not a good sign. To my utter amazement it was not guilty across the board. As soon as the jury exited the courtroom, the judge looked at the prosecutor and me and exclaimed, "holy ####!".

 
Mookie said:
"So that whole three inch section was just some wack-job you threw together on the spot, and the wackle-doo spackle you used crackled, and then Mrs. Smith got whackled on her head, didn't she?" = Gold
Click to expand...
Not an exact quote, but close.

 
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
I've done this in Washington. Don't know how many other jurisdictions you could pull this in.

 
going to a conference/marketing thing next week.

Ultimate Fighting Championship's in-house attorney will be present.

There's gotta be some good schtick and stories there, no?

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
I know here the registered agent has to accept service. I've never done that for deposition purposes. But I think the difference for you though is that you are a witness, not a party. My rules are different for that. It's on the party wanting the deposition of a witness to provide the commission and get it done in a manner that is not so invasive to the witness. If you were a party I think I'd say you have to produce them if they push.

As a witness though, without looking at a code book, I'd think screw them, let them jump through hoops.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?

 
Does your state have a "reasonably convenient to all parties" clause in the deposition rule?

If they can serve the corp via CT with a complaint in your state, why not a subpoena?

 
Are you in California, perchance? This was just dealt with in California a few years ago - they have to go to the state where your employees live to depose them.

 
Henry Ford said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
Click to expand...
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Henry Ford said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
Click to expand...
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.
Click to expand...
In Washington, I'd be able to serve a 30(b)(6) subpoena on you and you'd have to produce responsive witnesses in this state. The court wouldn't have jurisdiction to force any out-of-state individuals to comply with a subpoena, but because you're required to register in the state as a foreign corporation, the corporation is subjected to the court's jurisdiction over the corporation itself...so I can compel the corporation to produce designated 30(b)(6) witnesses in Washington, but I'd have to go chasing everyone else.

In California I'd need to go chasing after your witnesses.

 
-fish- said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Henry Ford said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
Click to expand...
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.
Click to expand...
In Washington, I'd be able to serve a 30(b)(6) subpoena on you and you'd have to produce responsive witnesses in this state. The court wouldn't have jurisdiction to force any out-of-state individuals to comply with a subpoena, but because you're required to register in the state as a foreign corporation, the corporation is subjected to the court's jurisdiction over the corporation itself...so I can compel the corporation to produce designated 30(b)(6) witnesses in Washington, but I'd have to go chasing everyone else.

In California I'd need to go chasing after your witnesses.
Click to expand...
His corporation isn't a party. How can you 30(b)(6) a non-party?

EDIT: Nevermind, I just checked the rule. Who knew?

I guess my question would be whether the witnesses are needed to testify as to what the company knew or whether they are just personal witnesses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus said:
Henry Ford said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
Click to expand...
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.
Click to expand...
If they want a corporate rep, they have to take who you give them (and even then I think any Motion to Quash or Limit so that it's done by telephone or in your own state would probably cause them to cave). If they want a specific witness, I don't see how serving the corp accomplishes anything.

If someone insisted on going the 30(b)(6) route, I'd just educate one guy on the topics to the best of my ability and still try to insist that they travel to take the deposition. Obviously, I'd have more than one designee if I needed to, but only if I couldn't get by with one guy.

 
Henry Ford said:
I can't stress this enough... WHAT ####ING STATE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Click to expand...
I understand its a state-specific question. I'm going to go do a bit of research, but I think we've decided how we're going to respond to this. We're going to offer up the main guy, here at our convenience, and make them do the leg-work if they want to get to the fringe guys. Interestingly, one of the fringe guys is me - would be the second time I've been deposed since going in-house. If they try to make us travel, which I think is very remote even if its available under state law, we've got some options which I don't want to get into due to the specifics of the matter.

thanks lawyer guys

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Henry Ford said:
CletiusMaximus said:
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Click to expand...
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
Click to expand...
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.
Click to expand...
If they want a corporate rep, they have to take who you give them (and even then I think any Motion to Quash or Limit so that it's done by telephone or in your own state would probably cause them to cave). If they want a specific witness, I don't see how serving the corp accomplishes anything.

If someone insisted on going the 30(b)(6) route, I'd just educate one guy on the topics to the best of my ability and still try to insist that they travel to take the deposition. Obviously, I'd have more than one designee if I needed to, but only if I couldn't get by with one guy.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably how it would play out. I remember in some cases we would use 30b6 if it was all we had available to get at a witness, then just tailor our topic list very specifically to make sure we get the witness we wanted.

 
Considering how many states have the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, I'd never consider not just trying to go through the foreign subpoena process and traveling if I were in the party's shoes. Unless the travel is to Hawaii or something, it's going to be cheaper than motions practice.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigbottom
2024 Edition - Please help bigbottom win a Battle of the Bands and support Chance for Hope as a Bonus! Just a $10 donation makes a difference
Replies
25
Views
367
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
DJackson10
Work won’t allow me back after being injured because of limitations on a separate issue they had no issue with previously when doing this job
Replies
29
Views
1K
DJackson10
DJackson10
DJackson10
Got hurt after I left work 3 weeks ago and my employer is giving me a hard time since the issue
2 3
Replies
101
Views
3K
DJackson10
DJackson10

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top