SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jlallen who wrote (4056)9/7/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: Doughboy  Read Replies (2) of 13994
 
You and Hodgkin can really stop patting each other on the back. Christopher, if you look up the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I think you will find that your haughty response was incorrect. The rule clearly states that you cannot refuse to answer on the grounds of relevance. As for your response, I pointed you to the point of the rule that you cites to me, so it's not like I was hiding that from you. All you can finally say is that questions that are not only irrelevant but are also harrassing and abusive can be subject to an immediate motion to the Court. There is no provision to refuse to answer on relevance grounds. And if you guys had any extensive experience in depositions, I think you should know that.

Doughboy.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News