Q: What kinds of objections are allowed at DEPOSITIONS?
In a video uploaded on YT, an attorney who claims to have taken over 1,000 depositions asserts that the only kinds of objections permitted at depositions are privcacy/priviledge (e.g., husband-wife, attorney-client, etc.) and form (e.g., the question is vague/ambiguous, compound, argumentative, asked and answered, a false choice/(mis)leading/mischaracterization, lacks foundation, assumes facts not in evidence, calls for speculation, calls for a legal conclusion, and similar). Specifically, he states that relevance is not a proper objection at a deposition. However, numerous other attorneys in other videos suggest that one can indeed object to a deposition question based on relevance. Also, if relevance were not objectionable, what would keep the deposing attorney from asking all kinds of irrelevant questions, to which (applying this one attorney's position) the deponent would have no choice but to respond?
A:
This is an excellent question about deposition objections in California civil litigation. Let me break down the key points and provide some clarification:
1. Types of objections generally allowed in depositions:
The attorney you mentioned is largely correct. The most common and widely accepted objections in depositions are:
a) Privilege (including attorney-client, spousal, etc.)
b) Form of the question (vague, compound, argumentative, etc.)
2. Relevance objections:
There's some nuance here that might explain the conflicting information you've encountered:
a) In California, relevance objections are generally discouraged during depositions, but they are not strictly prohibited.
b) The rationale is that depositions are meant to be broad discovery tools, and relevance is often determined in the context of the entire case, which may not be fully apparent during the deposition.
c) However, if a line of questioning is clearly irrelevant or appears designed to harass the witness, an attorney might still object on relevance grounds.
3. Limits on irrelevant questions:
While relevance objections are discouraged, there are still protections against abusive or overly irrelevant questioning:
a) California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.420 allows a party to seek a protective order before the deposition to limit its scope.
b) During the deposition, an attorney can object to questions that are clearly harassing or made in bad faith.
c) If questioning becomes excessively irrelevant or abusive, an attorney can suspend the deposition and seek court intervention under CCP § 2025.470.
4. Best practices:
a) Most experienced attorneys will make "form" objections and only rarely object on relevance grounds during a deposition.
b) They may state "objection, relevance" for the record but still allow the witness to answer unless the question involves privileged information or is clearly harassing.
c) Substantive objections, including detailed relevance arguments, are typically reserved for motions to the court later.
It's worth noting that deposition practices can vary somewhat between jurisdictions and individual judges. If you're involved in a case, it's always best to consult with your attorney about the specific practices in your court.
1 user found this answer helpful
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.