{"id":903820,"date":"2025-01-15T13:29:35","date_gmt":"2025-01-15T20:29:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=903820"},"modified":"2025-01-15T13:29:37","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T20:29:37","slug":"objections-when-they-arent-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/objections-when-they-arent-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"When Mere Objections\u00a0Are Not Enough"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Esquire Deposition Solutions<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a common practice during a deposition for lawyers to assert legal objections<\/a> to witness testimony but then allow the deposition to proceed. In fact, this practice is broadly encouraged. Depositions are wide-ranging pretrial inquiries that should, under normal circumstances, continue to their conclusion regardless of arguable legal errors that might have occurred along the way. Legal objections are resolved by the trial court at a later date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there are some types of deposition irregularities where merely asserting an objection on the record is not enough to preserve the error for later review. As the plaintiff learned recently in\u00a0Ratcliffe v. BRP U.S. Inc.<\/a>, No.\u00a020-cv-00234 (D. Maine, Nov.\u00a08, 2024),<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

the unauthorized presence of a third party in the room where a remote deposition witness is testifying is the sort of error that requires counsel to do more than merely place an objection on the record.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A Zoom Deposition, Circa 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This deposition, conducted remotely via Zoom, took place on April 26, 2021, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic \u2013 a time when even experienced litigators were practicing under the \u201cnew normal\u201d of remote depositions. The witness was a 36-year-old man who had observed the four-wheel recreational vehicle mishap that gave rise to the plaintiff\u2019s complaint. The deposition witness suffered from a bipolar disorder; in the room during his remote testimony was his mother, who also served as her son\u2019s legal guardian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The witness resided more than 100 miles from the trial court so, under\u00a0Rule 32(a)(4)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure<\/a>, his deposition testimony could be used at trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the deposition transcript passages provided in the court\u2019s opinion, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney appeared to be unaware of the mother\u2019s off-camera presence until she spoke for the first time. The plaintiff\u2019s attorney requested that the mother identify herself for the record. At several points during the deposition, the mother:<\/p>\n\n\n\n