10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

What to do when an organization resists your efforts to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition by claiming it not only doesn't currently have information on the topics, but that it never had any? As Jim urges you to do in this episode, take the deposition and force the entity's designee to say it entirely lacks knowledge on the topics. Why? Because the absence of knowledge is itself a discoverable fact. And showing that an entity took no steps to become informed on critical matters can be powerful proof of indifference, negligence, or omission. Don't miss this one!SHOW NOTES:Order Overruling Defendant’s Objection To Magistrate Judge Vatti’s Order Dated February 5, 2026, LaBroad v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-1102 (KAD), 2026 WL 1746249 (ruling that magistrate judge correctly determined “that the purported nonexistence of any materials regarding [defendant’s training on parking lot safety] is, itself, a relevant fact on which [Plaintiff] is entitled to develop evidence via Rule 30(b)(6)”)Hepco Data LLC v. Hepco Medical LLC, 2020 WL 1870320, No. 2D19-2134 (2d DCA April 15, 2020) (certiorari granted, quashing order blocking depositions, because petitioners established through filed proffer that depositions were relevant; held, “litigants would never be able to take a nonparty deposition if all the non-party had to do to get out of it is to say that he or she had nothing to say; representations of opponent that discovery isn’t relevant need not be relied on)John v. Core Brace, LLC 2021 WL 329460, No. 4:20-CV-00071-BLW (D. Idaho Jan. 29, 2021) (citing Apple. Inc., 282 F.R.D. at 263 for proposition that “A claimed lack of knowledge, by itself, is insufficient to preclude a deposition,” omitting additional citations)United States of America v. Newman, 2021 WL 1026019, No. 19-1868 (RJL) ( D. D. C. Mar. 17, 2021) (sarcastically noting government’s proposed stipulation that certain evidence had not moved from its location during relevant time was an unconvincing “attempt to stipulate itself out of [having to respond to] discovery”)Klorczyk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:13-CV-257 (HBF), 2015 WL 1600299, at *4-5 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2015) (holding that a "we-don't-know" response can be binding on the corporation at trial and prohibit it from offering evidence on those points; if a designee genuinely lacks knowledge, the designee must still be prepared to testify concerning the corporation's efforts to obtain the information and why it lacks sufficient knowledge)QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (establishing that the lack of knowledge answer is itself an answer which will bind the corporation at trial; lack of knowledge is insufficient grounds to preclude a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; “The conclusion that the corporation is bound at trial by a legitimate lack of knowledge response at the 30(b)(6) deposition is, for all practical purposes a variation on the rule and philosophy against trial by ambush. Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 38; Wilson, 228 F.R.D. at 531; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 363 (rule prevents “sandbagging” and prevents corporation from making a “half-hearted inquiry before the deposition but a thorough and vigorous one before the trial”).

Today, Jim Garrity examines a critical issue in trial practice: whether an incomplete deposition—cut short when the deponent becomes unavailable—can be admitted at trial, particularly when the opposing party had no opportunity for cross-examination. Drawing on a new Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jim explores the court’s decision, the key factors trial lawyers should argue for or against exclusion, and the balancing test that should be used when essential testimony hangs in the balance. Discover practical strategies for both offering and opposing use of incomplete deposition transcripts in high-stakes litigation. Thanks for listening!SHOW NOTESInsight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management, et al., No. 24-5222, 2025 WL 2434894 (6th Cir. August 25, 2025) (reversing trial court’s ruling that deposition was categorically inadmissible because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a 30 B6 deponent before his death)Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) (setting three-part test for admissibility of deposition testimony at trial)Treharne v. Callahan, 426 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1970) (court upheld the district court's discretionary admission of written interrogatory answers given by the now-deceased defendant, even though the plaintiff could not cross-examine; under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, answers to interrogatories can be used to the same extent as depositions, which are admissible if the witness is dead; further, the need for the evidence—being the only defense evidence—outweighed the lack of cross-examination, especially where death was not caused by the party offering the evidence and there was no fault involved)Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (magistrate declined to exclude a deposition taken without defense counsel present, even though the witness died before cross-examination could occur; under Rule 32(a), depositions of deceased witnesses may be admitted if the party had notice and opportunity to participate, and the prejudice to the party proffering the deposition (who would lose critical evidence) outweighed potential prejudice to the opponent. Court proposed that any prejudice could be minimized by stipulating to facts the defense might have developed via cross-examination, reducing the impact of any lost impeachment opportunity)Derewecki v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1965) (trial and appeals courts admitted decedent’s incomplete depositions as evidence, despite the absence of cross-examination by the defendant who had no chance to cross-examine before the witness died; Rule 26 authorized admission of depositions when the deponent is deceased as long as the circumstances justified it, and both parties had agreed the deposition was “completed” for evidentiary purposes; further, the harm in excluding the sole direct evidence of how the accident occurred outweighed the right to cross-examination. Courts must consider whether the lack of cross is due to fault; here, no such fault was shown)Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1969) (deposition of a witness who died before any cross-examination by the adverse party was admitted in bench trial; where there was no realistic possibility that cross-examination would have materially aided the party, exclusion was not required. Further, deposition testimony corroborated by other evidence; thus, lack of cross-examination did not affect the outcome)In re Reingold, 157 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1998) (testimony excluded at trial level; exclusion reversed. Trial court excluded party-plaintiff’s perpetuation deposition, taken while the plaintiff was gravely ill and ended before cross-examination could be completed due to the witness's declining condition and ultimate death; Fifth Circuit held this exclusion to be a clear abuse of discretion and granted mandamus relief directing admission of the video deposition; FRCP 32(a) creates strong presumption favoring admission of a deceased witness’s deposition. Exclusion is only justified by a specific and particularized showing of prejudice, such as stating what crucial areas would have been dealt with in cross-examination; a mere generalized complaint about the lack of cross is insufficient. Since the opposing party had already conducted a substantial deposition of the witness in prior proceedings, the risks of prejudice were further minimized)

Are deposition expenses busting your budget? In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a clever strategy conceived by a southern California litigator to sharply cut the costs of deposition transcripts. It's yet another effort by trial lawyers to combat the insane costs of stenographic reporting, and one worth trying. The show notes point to seventeen relevant filings on this issue, four federal rules, and a website for a service that is actively helping lawyers cut deposition costs.Like this podcast? Our production crew LOVES 5-star reviews. They're free, fast to leave, and provide us the kind of appreciative good vibes we crave. Would you mind taking ten seconds and clicking on the five-star rating? Thanks!SHOW NOTES:Note: All filings listed below are from the case Black v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1990-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)Plaintiff’s Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A) (initial application by Plaintiff) PACER Doc. 153Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 160.Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP 30(b)(3)(A), PACER DOC. 153-1Defendant Tutterow’s Notice Of Joinder In Defendant City Of San Diego’s Opposition To Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition, PACER Doc. 162.Defendants Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 164Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A), PACER Doc. 165Second Supplemental Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiff Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition. Etc., PACER Doc. 170Defendants Second Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 171Order (Magistrate Judge) Denying Plaintiff’s Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 172Plaintiff’s Notice Of Objection To Order Denying Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition, Etc. PACER Doc. 173 (appealing magistrate judge’s order to district judge)Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Objection To Magistrate’s Order Denying Claims Application For Leave, PACER Doc. 174Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Response To Player’s Objection To Magistrate’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Application, Etc., PACER Doc. 175Order (District Judge) Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections, PACER Doc. 178Order Granting Joint Motion For Protective Order, PACER Doc. 32 (providing that certain information was to remain confidential)Modified Protective Order, PACER Doc. 156Readback.legal (reporting agency dedicated to reducing deposition -related costs; interview of Readback’s Chief Legal Officer in podcast episode 87)1993 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (noting that where a deposition isn't stenographically recorded, transcripts are often later prepared by counsels' own law firmsFed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(a) (allowing lawyers to capture deposition testimony by stenographic means only, audio only, video only, or any combination of the three)FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) and FRCP 32(c) (providing that if counsel chooses to record a deposition by video only and plan to present it at trial or hearing, they must provide a transcript of the testimony to the other parties and the court)Readback.legal (innovative and budget-friendly service advertised as "certified, court-admissible deposition service built for legal professionals who need clarity, speed, and accuracy, without relying on outdated stenography")

Now that the pandemic is fading from our memories, courts are showing a renewed willingness to order plaintiffs to appear in person for their depositions, even when a plaintiff has relocated to distant places and will incur considerable expense and inconvenience if forced to travel. In this episode, Jim Garrity dissects a brand-new court ruling on the topic, explains in detail why the plaintiff in that case failed to win a protective order requiring her to travel 2,000 miles back to the litigation forum. Then he offers crucial tactical advices for both plaintiffs and defendants when fighting this battle. SHOW NOTESOrder Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc., Case No. 23-0431-KD-B, 2025 WL 1710041 (S.D. Ala. June 18, 2025) (court refused to issue protective order where plaintiff, who moved cross-country since filing her lawsuit, claimed financial and medical hardships but failed to meet her burden of a particularized showing of harm to justify relief)

Today’s episode showcases four new deposition-related rulings, including one that makes a compelling case for using Rule 31 depositions by written questions; a second that underscores the need to proactively consider limiting deposition transcript distribution; a third that highlights rare exceptions to a party’s right to attend depositions; and a fourth which reinforces the basic principle that deposition subpoenas duces tecum cannot be used to shorten Rule 34’s 30-day document production timeline. Thanks for listening, and be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based, 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice - A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics & Strategies for Civil, Administrative, Arbitrative and Criminal Litigation. Available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.SHOW NOTESKilmetis v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 24-CV-04452 (JMW), 2025 WL 1332056 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2025) (Rule 31 depositions)Hales v. Cook, et al., No. 1:24-cv45/ZCB, 2024 WL 5690279 (N. D. Fla. December 20, 2024) (on restricting distribution of deposition transcripts)Rupard, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al., No. 23-CV-1357 CAB (BLM), 2025 WL 1265858 (S. D. Cal. April 30, 2025) (on excluding parties from depositions in their own cases)Johnson v. Parks Floyd Investments, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-1063 SMD/KRS, 2025 WL 1191785 (D. New Mexico April 24, 2025) (on use of deposition subpoenas duces tecum to parties as a tool to circumvent and shorten the normal period for production of documents)

In this episode, Jim Garrity highlights three brand new deposition-related court rulings. The first presents the question of whether witnesses and their counsel can be prohibited from discussing the witnesses' testimony during recesses. The second addresses the propriety of asking foundational questions of privilege-bearing deponents to determine if the assertion of privilege is legitimate; the opinion explains what "foundational" questions are, gives examples, and details the procedure for deposing such witnesses and then presenting the issue to a court for decision. The third case in the spotlight highlights an avoidable problem when a lawyer seeks to depose an individual who has already testified in a 30(b)(6) capacity. Citations to the cases appear in today's show notes. Thanks for listening.SHOW NOTESVillareal v. Texas, Case No. 24-557, __ US __ (Apr. 7, 2025) agreeing to review ruling denying criminal defendant’s request to confer about his testimony with his counsel during overnight breaks) petition for writ of certiorari at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/331695/20241113121417971_cert%20petition%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf; Brief in Opposition at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf; Reply Brief at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/351275/20250305130135816_cert%20reply%2024-557%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdfAllergan, Inc. et al. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00431, 2025 WL 1006372 (M. D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2025) (outlining the procedure for questioning witnesses claiming privilege, and holding that foundational questions about the allegedly privileged communications must be allowed to determine whether a privilege exists)In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, Case Number 22–MD–03047–YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 1009362 (N. D. Calif. Apr. 4, 2025) (denying request for deposition of a witness in an individual capacity, on basis that deposing party should have combined such a deposition with the 30(b)(6) deposition of the same person)

In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a new ruling on a little-known but powerful tool: the use of depositions as affidavits. As Garrity discusses, a deposition does not need to meet the requirements of trial-oriented Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 (which requires a showing that the party against whom the deposition is offered had notice and a chance to examine the deposition) when it is offered in proceedings that allow testimony by affidavit, such as at summary judgment.SHOW NOTESSurety v. Co. v. Dwight A. Herald, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-GNS-HBB, 2025 WL 627523 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025) (deposition/examination under oath of witness taken in underlying state-court personal injury could be used in federal declaratory judgment actions at summary judgment time, as deposition meets form of affidavit)Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, et al., 960 F. 2d 765 (8th Cir. 1992) (deposition need not be admissible at trial to be properly considered in opposition to motions for summary judgment; deposition inadmissible at trial because one of the defendants did not receive proper notice and did not attend the deposition was properly used to create issues of fact justifying denial of summary judgment)Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 ... plainly allows consideration of “affidavits” and we find nothing which requires that term to be construed within the limitations of Rule 32(a).”).First Gaston Bank of North Carolina v. City of Hickory, 691 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. N.C. 2010) (citing cases rejecting proposition that FRCP 32 limits use of depositions in proceedings where evidence in affidavit form is admissible; pointing out that to the extent a party objects that they didn’t have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose deposition from some other cases being offered, “the same objection can frequently be made as to affidavits filed in connection with motions for summary judgment”)Tingey v. Radionics, 193 F. App'x 747, 765–66 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment where trial court, relying on FRCP 32, excluded from consideration in opposition to summary judgment a deposition that plaintiff took of physician in separate state proceeding, where defendant was not party to that proceeding and had not been given notice of deposition; depositions can be used as affidavits in proceedings where affidavits are admissible; to illustrate, “[p]arties may file affidavits in support of summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The “remedy” for this non-confronted affidavit testimony is to file an opposing affidavit, not to complain that one was not present and permitted to cross-examine when the affidavit was signed. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has permitted a party to introduce deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes against a party who was not present at the deposition, by construing the deposition as an affidavit. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966–67 (9th Cir.1981)”)Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, 291 F.3d 738, 751 (11th Cir. 2002) (without analyzing scope and extent of application of FRCP 32, court broadly said that “Depositions are generally admissible provided that the party against whom they are admitted was present, represented, or reasonably noticed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a), and are specifically allowed in consideration of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A deposition taken in a different proceeding is admissible if the party against whom it is offered was provided with an opportunity to examine the deponent. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1).”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (explicitly allowing citation to depositions for or against summary judgment)8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2142 (1970))) (as are at least as good as affidavits and should be usable whenever an affidavit would be permissible, even where the conditions or requirements for use at trial under rule 32 are not met)