deposition lunch break

Because unlike, hall a privilege was directly implicated, Judge Brody first had to apply state law (thats required by Fed.
Otherwise: This Court will not preclude an attorney, during a recess that he or she did not request, from making sure that his or her client did not misunderstand or misinterpret questions or documents, or attempt to help rehabilitate the client by fulfilling an attorney's.As an aside, the Pennsylvania state courts have, as far as we can tell, not followed Hall.See In re Stratosphere Corp.Thus, Attorney Cohens question regarding possible deposit locations for the payments at issue would be permissible because the answer might lead to document discovery, such as account statements referencing these deposits.To allow private conferences initiated by the witness would be to allow the witness to listen to the question, ask his or her lawyer for the answer, and then parrot the lawyer's response.Once again, the Court finds that the instruction not to answer was improper.648 (lo.2001 I agree with the reasoning.Attorney Wertheim asked Evgeny Freidman whether Naum Freidman owned a company which managed New York City taxi medallions.17, 1995) (confering with the witness constantly during the deposition was sanctionable vacated on reconsideration on other grounds, 1995 WL 395937 (E.D.That is, discussions between witness and attorney should not take place, and if they do, the content of casino kort those discussions may be discovered by opposing counsel.The Sixth Instruction Not to Answer.A recent example weve found at least involving drug/device (if not product liability) litigation.About the Author, elizabeth.Attorney Wertheim asked whether Evgeny Freidman intended to take any steps to get new tenants for the Korm property.While Respondents may believe that Attorney Wertheims questions nonetheless fall into one or more of the enumerated bases under Uniform Rule 221.2, they have not specified which, if any, apply here, nor do their arguments otherwise indicate an applicable basis for an instruction not to answer.Notwithstanding Respondents characterization, bickering is not an enumerated basis for directing a deponent not to answer.You dont necessarily need to ask them about their personal issues to know what they might need.For example, under New Jersey Court Rule 4:14-3(f "once the deponent has been sworn, there shall be no communication between the deponent and counsel during the course of the deposition while testimony is being taken except with regard to the assertion of a claim.