Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3835)	9/4/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 13994

<<You are fully entitled to object to a deposition question on the grounds of relevance and to refuse to answer it>> I have been deposed in civil cases, both relating to personal injury cases and securities issues. In all cases, the lawyer not doing the deposing instructed me to wait for him to nod before answering, to give him time to object to the questions. In those cases where an objection was made, the other attorney either reworded the question or dropped the issue. In other words, I agree with you.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3835)	9/4/1998 10:47:00 AM
From: Doughboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13994

Please learn something about the law before you take on a lawyer. jlallen is completely correct and you are completely wrong about the scope of discovery. You are fully entitled to object to a deposition question on the grounds of relevance and to refuse to answer it. Hmm, you sound like a haughty lawyer, but are you really one, Christopher Hodgkin, Esq.? (Especially curious is your spelling of "sueing".) Since I have been deposed several times, I remember this rule that says that objections to questions--including relevance--are deferred to trial and that I could not refuse to answer a question except for atty client privilege. I called the lawyer who represented me and my company, and he confirmed that you are full of it. He faxed this to me: Rule 30(d)(1) states that "A party may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to a enforce a limitation on evidence directed by the Court, or to present a motion under paragraph (3)" (which is a motion to stop a party from acting in bad faith or harassing the witness). My lawyer also added, unprompted, that any lawyer should know this rule, because it is sanctionable to instruct a witness not answer on improper grounds. As for Linda Tripp: Opinion is protected and truth is the ultimate defense. Doughboy.