Was there a deposit ever and your opponent has consistently raised objections? One after the other: "Not Relevant"; "Hearsay"; "assumes facts that have not been proven", "asks for an opinion." It is contradictory, is not it?
Or worse, the lawyer protests protests that specifically teach witnesses, such as: "With the calculation of deceiving the jury to think about the story, so the cardiologist could not examine the abnormal ECG and only focuses on lung mucus when the evidence actually suggests that the ECG was only continued until this witness had examined the patient. "
Given that the deposits spend a thousand dollars or more, and sometimes for weeks or months, inappropriate objections may be quite outrageous. This raises the question: What objections are suitable for the deposition?
The first thing to remember is that the finds lead to discovery. And the scope of permissible discovery includes "any matter that is not privileged and relevant to the subject in question […] [that is] itself as reasonable evidence or it may reasonably be calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." The Civil Code is 2017.010.
It is therefore always necessary to justify questions that require privileged non-related information or which are not counted on the discovery of reasonable evidence when depositing them. Objections to such questions are good, and most likely they are appropriate.
Privileges are fairly easy to grasp and "non-quantifiable" questions are questions that logically only reveal unacceptable things. The notion of harder understanding is "not relevant to the subject". This is not the same thing as "relevance" as the "acceptability" test, as used in Section 150 of the evidence code. Rather, the "relevant subject" is considered to be the best for discovery purposes for the assessment of the case, preparation for negotiation or facilitation of settlement. Gonzalez v. Superior Court (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal. App.4th 1539, 1546. There is also a balance that is created when it enters into irrelevant material. The courts will examine whether the advantage of allowing discovery exceeds the burden. See Bridgestone / Firestone v Superior Court (Rios) (1992) 7 Cal.App.4. 1384, 1391.
The most important thing to note is that the scope of the allowed discovery is very wide. "Taking due account of the fact that it leads to the discovery of acceptable evidence" means that it is permissible to investigate areas that are in themselves unacceptable if they light up other admissible evidence. See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (Clay) (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 384. Therefore, the correct grounds for challenging depository issues are narrower than at trial.
it is permissible to ask questions that ask for silence with information that may be technically irrelevant to a particular matter or even a religious call. Answers to these questions may be unacceptable at the hearing, but may lead to follow-up questions that reveal acceptable evidence. Thus objections such as "hearing," "irrelevant," and "asking for an opinion" are generally improper in deposition.
Case-law explicitly raises questions that require a deposit to be silenced because they may lead to other admissible evidence. Smith vs. Superior Court (Alfred) (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 6, 11-12. Likewise, it is also permissible to collect cumulative information, so the objection in this area is inappropriate. TBG Ins. Services v. Superior Court (Zieminski) (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448. Exceptions to the general rule are the discovery of non-parties against which distant fishing excursions are unlikely to be permitted.
Enforcement of privilege is an appropriate excuse for depositing. Claims related to such rights include lawyer-clients (Evid Code §950), doctor-patient (Evid Code §990), psychotherapist-patient (Evid Code §1010), priesthood scapegoat (Evid Code 1030) (Evid Code (Evid Code §980), business secrets (Evid Code Code1060), tax returns (Webb v. Standard Oil (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-514), cases mediated ( Evid Code § 1152) and others
The next group of appropriate excuses in the arrest raises an objection to the form of the question. According to the Civil Procedure Code, subsection 2025.460 (b), except when it relates to the issue of deposit with respect to the form of the question. These objections include statements that the question calls for ambiguous, confusing, complex, unjustified narratives for speculation, reasoning or leadership
. These objections should not be controversial. If your opponent protests about the form of your questions, do not find out if the objection is correct or not. It simply redefines the question and goes on.
I saw that defense lawyers intimidate applicants and inexperienced lawyers in custody and investigate a copy of the complaint and ask the claimant to explain legal disputes. These improper questions about the deposition and excuses for them are well formulated for them. See Rifkind v. Superior Court (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4. 1255, 1259. The applicant's questions, however, are admissible in order to provide factual allegations of complaint.
I also saw that lawyers instruct their clients not to answer post-release questions. This is only appropriate if the excuse is privileged. Indeed, the Civil Code 2025.460, subsection (a) actually requires you to object to a question and instruct your clients not to respond or to waive a privileged objection.
for any other reason is inappropriate. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015. It is also annoying as it hampers the flow of information and tends to cause witnesses to ask the lawyer at any time to the side door
allegations relating to his objections concern, inter alia, objections to defects in custody notification, erroneous allegations or allegations, and objections to objections from a party, party attorney or mismanagement of a court reporter
Source by sbobet