{"id":904192,"date":"2025-04-08T16:06:09","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T22:06:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=904192"},"modified":"2025-04-08T16:06:12","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T22:06:12","slug":"deposition-objection-what-to-do-after","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/deposition-objection-what-to-do-after\/","title":{"rendered":"What to Do After\u00a0Asserting\u00a0a Deposition Objection"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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

The rule seems simple enough: Attorneys defending a witness during a deposition may instruct the witness not to answer questions only for the purpose of protecting privileged information. And yet, if the number of trial court rulings addressing the topic are any indication, this business of instructing witnesses not to answer deposition questions is a frequent source of pretrial discovery skirmishing. The sticking point is not so much whether grounds exist for preventing discovery (after all, there\u2019s only one proper reason) but what processes counsel should initiate after an impasse is reached during the deposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

If counsel believes that a line of questioning is not permissible, they should raise the matter with the trial court \u2013 either during the deposition via a phone conference, or immediately afterward by filing a motion for a protective order.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The issue recently produced a rare appellate opinion,\u00a0Middlestadt v. Burgess<\/a>, No.\u00a024-01741 (Ariz. Ct. App., Jan.\u00a09, 2025). Following the imposition of sanctions against an attorney who directed his client not to answer questions seeking relevant, non-privileged information, the Arizona Court of Appeals intervened, deeming the \u201cproper defense of a witness at a deposition\u201d to be \u201ca question of statewide importance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Arizona,\u00a0Rule 30(c)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure<\/a>\u00a0provides in part:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsel may instruct a deponent not to answer \u2013 or a deponent may refuse to answer \u2013 only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limit ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3). Otherwise, the deponent must answer, and the testimony is taken subject to any objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rule 30(c)(3) provides additional guidance regarding questions seeking privileged information:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unless necessary to preserve a privilege, the deponent and his or her counsel may not confer off the record while a question is pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other states have similar rules, most of them modeled on\u00a0Rule 30(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of<\/a> <\/a>Civil Procedure<\/a>, which provides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Middlestadt<\/em>, an auto accident injury case, the plaintiff\u2019s attorney asked the defendant whether he was given a traffic citation for his conduct in the accident. The defendant\u2019s attorney objected and directed the defendant not to answer \u201cany questions about any citations regardless of who may or may not have been cited.\u201d The apparent basis of the objection was an Arizona statute, A.R.S. \u00a728- 1599, that provides, among other things, that \u201c[a]n admission of the allegation of a civil traffic complaint or a judgment on the complaint is not evidence of negligence in a civil or criminal proceeding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objection prompted an extensive argument between counsel, with plaintiff\u2019s attorney contending she was entitled to ask questions on any non-privileged matter, and the defendant\u2019s attorney arguing that the statute relieved his client of the obligation to answer questions regarding traffic citations. Both attorneys threatened the other with sanctions. The trial court eventually imposed sanctions \u2013 on the defendant\u2019s attorney alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You\u2019ve Stopped the Deposition: Now What?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appellate court somewhat summarily turned back the attorney\u2019s legal arguments in support of his conduct, holding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n