Sidebar: deposition reading procedure

📄 Sidebar: deposition reading procedure — Wednesday, November 6, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\6\SIDEBAR-DEPOSITION-READING-PRO.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 10 of 57

◀ Cross-examination of Harry Scull (part 1) Cross-examination of Harry Scull (part 2) ▶

Date: Wednesday, November 6, 1996 • Utterances: 8

A brief sidebar about whether plaintiff's counsel (Petrocelli) could read portions of a deposition cross-examination that defense had selectively omitted. Leonard objected that going back to cross-examination was inappropriate since redirect had passed, but Petrocelli argued he had no notice of selective reading and was entitled to complete the record. The judge allowed it.

# 1 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, can we approach?

# 2 THE COURT:

Sure.

# 3 MR. LEONARD:

Yes.

# 4 (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter:)

# 5 MR. LEONARD:

It appears that Mr. Kelly is going to go back and try to read portions of the cross-examination.

I don't think that's appropriate. They had an opportunity to get into redirect. I don't think it's appropriate for him to read cross-examination.

# 6 MR. PETROCELLI:

Excuse me. First of all, I don't know of any such rule of law. We're reading deposition transcripts two at a time.

I designated -- they directly informed me, Your Honor, that they were doing the entire cross, so I had no way of knowing that they were going to pick and choose. So we now want to read some portions that they omitted on cross-examination.

# 7 THE COURT:

Okay. I'll allow it.

# 8 MR. PETROCELLI:

Thank you.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Dan Leonard

I don't think that's appropriate. They had an opportunity to get into redirect. I don't think it's appropriate for him to read cross-examination.

Defense trying to lock plaintiffs out of completing the deposition record after defense cherry-picked portions.

Daniel Petrocelli

I designated -- they directly informed me, Your Honor, that they were doing the entire cross, so I had no way of knowing that they were going to pick and choose.

Petrocelli claims he was misled about scope of deposition reading, justifying his need to fill gaps.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Dan Leonard•Daniel Petrocelli

Dispute over whether plaintiffs could read portions of deposition cross-examination omitted by defense; Petrocelli argued he was told defense would read the entire cross.

strategic

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8156 • 8 utterances

Civil Trial

Department 103