by Jim Garrity
<p><span>From Jim Garrity, the country’s leading deposition expert, comes this podcast for hardcore litigators. The subject? Taking and defending depositions.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>Each episode is a one-topic, mini field guide, meant to educate and inform trial lawyers looking for world-class deposition strategies and tactics. Garrity includes a general discussion of the topic, specific insights and guidance, questions to ponder, and case citations to support his observations. They’re jam-packed with immediately useful advice and guidance.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>Garrity has appeared as lead trial counsel in more than two thousand federal and state civil cases. His personal deposition experience now far exceeds the 10,000 mentioned in the title. (For business reasons, his publisher did not want him to update the title number.) He’s been up against the best litigators at hundreds of firms, from the nation’s largest to sole practitioners, and there’s literally no tactic, trick, variation or strategy he hasn’t seen hundreds of times. Indeed, one federal judge, commenting in open court, observed that Garrity “has pulled multiple rabbits out of multiple hats,” meaning he wins cases against inconceivable odds. How? Because of his extraordinary deposition skills. Depositions are the decisive factor in nearly all settlements and trials. You cannot achieve excellent outcomes if you cannot prevail in depositions.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>Garrity is famous for his simple, keen observation: “Depositions are the new trial.” Why? Because almost none of your witnesses will ever testify anywhere other than in a deposition. Yale University Professor Marc Galanter, in his law review article titled “The Disappearance of Civil Trials in the United States,” opened with this shocking statistic: “</span>Since the 1930’s, the proportion of civil cases concluded at trial has declined from about 20% to below 2% in the federal courts and below 1% in state courts.”</p><p><br></p><p>So depositions are in fact the new trial. Except for a tiny fraction of your cases, the court reporter's office is the only place where your testimony will be taken and heard. And that is where your case will be won or lost. You can’t afford anything less than expert-level skill in the deposition arts.</p><p><br></p><p><span>This podcast, based on Garrity's best-selling book,10,000 Deposition Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice (3d Ed., 450 pp.; Amazon, Barnes & Noble), is a litigator’s dream, not only revealing cutting-edge techniques and procedures, but telling you how to combine them creatively and successfully. Learn how to gain advantage at every step. Learn the path to victory and learn where the landmines are along that path. Discover the legitimate (and illegitimate) tactics opponents use that you’ve never seen before.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>The podcast is heavy on insights you can immediately implement. Regardless of your years of experience, the episodes will provide an astonishing advantage. And each episode contains citation to court decisions to support Garrity’s advice.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>His expert guidance begins with the moment you first conceive plans to capture testimony – whether by deposition, affidavit or EUO (and he’ll tell you how to figure out which to use and when). Most importantly, he explains what he does and why. No part of the deposition process will be overlooked – forming the battle plan, scheduling, dealing with reporters, taking depositions, defending them, prepping witnesses to make them invincible, handling every conceivable type of witness, making objections, dealing with obstructive lawyers, and tips pertinent to deposition transcripts, from the moment of receipt through trial.</span></p><p><br></p><p><span>If you’re serious about developing killer deposition skill sets, subscribe to this podcast so that you receive each episode automatically in your feet as they are uploaded. </span></p>
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
10/17/2020
Email Addresses
1 available
Phone Numbers
0 available
April 12, 2025
<p>In this episode, Jim Garrity highlights three brand new deposition-related court rulings. The first presents the question of whether witnesses and their counsel can be prohibited from discussing the witnesses' testimony during recesses. The second addresses the propriety of asking foundational questions of privilege-bearing deponents to determine if the assertion of privilege is legitimate; the opinion explains what "foundational" questions are, gives examples, and details the procedure for deposing such witnesses and then presenting the issue to a court for decision. The third case in the spotlight highlights an avoidable problem when a lawyer seeks to depose an individual who has already testified in a 30(b)(6) capacity. Citations to the cases appear in today's show notes. Thanks for listening.</p><p>SHOW NOTES</p><p>Villareal v. Texas, Case No. 24-557, __ US __ (Apr. 7, 2025) agreeing to review ruling denying criminal defendant’s request to confer about his testimony with his counsel during overnight breaks) petition for writ of certiorari at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/331695/20241113121417971_cert%20petition%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/331695/20241113121417971_cert%20petition%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf</a>; Brief in Opposition at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/348537/20250225093718236_250219a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf</a>; Reply Brief at <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/351275/20250305130135816_cert%20reply%2024-557%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-557/351275/20250305130135816_cert%20reply%2024-557%20Villarreal%20v%20Texas.pdf</a></p><p>Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00431, 2025 WL 1006372 (M. D. Tenn. Apr. 3, 2025) (outlining the procedure for questioning witnesses claiming privilege, and holding that foundational questions about the allegedly privileged communications must be allowed to determine whether a privilege exists)</p><p>In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, Case Number 22–MD–03047–YGR (PHK), 2025 WL 1009362 (N. D. Calif. Apr. 4, 2025) (denying request for deposition of a witness in an individual capacity, on basis that deposing party should have combined such a deposition with the 30(b)(6) deposition of the same person)</p>
March 19, 2025
<p>Our roundup episodes summarize brand-new, deposition-related court rulings from around the country. We cover four new rulings in this episode on crucial issues:</p><ul><li>You can successfully oppose even otherwise taxable deposition costs, when an adversary prevails, by making these fairness-based arguments</li><li>FRCP 30(b)(6) topic lists must be proportionate to the case, as a court ruled when refusing to evaluate a list of 503 topics</li><li>The rule of sequestration does not apply in federal civil cases and the majority of states, but you may succeed in getting a court to impose it if you can show one of these "plus" factors</li><li>In-person depositions are still a thing, and should not be treated as unusual or requiring an extraordinary showing</li></ul><p><br></p><p>As always, thanks for listening! And remember - these episodes are always free and contain no advertising. What's the catch? Only that we'd ask you to leave us a 5-star rating wherever you download your podcasts. Those ratings are deeply motivating to, and deeply appreciated by, our research and production staff. And be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based - 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice. Now in its 4th edition at 625 pages, available on Amazon and almost everywhere books are sold.</p><p>SHOW NOTES</p><p>LUV N' CARE v. LINDSEY LAURAIN, ET AL, No. CV 3:16-00777, 2025 WL 622334, at *8 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025) (while courts cannot award costs not explicitly identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, courts do have discretion to deny award of otherwise recoverable costs where fairness or other considerations dictate)</p><p>NATHEN W. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. REAL INNOVATION INC. et al., Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-05194-DGE, 2025 WL 606167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025) See 36-page notice (Case 3:24-cv-05194-DGE Document 51-1 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 36 (contains 503 actual questions, not topics)</p><p>MARK WRIGHT-AHERN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CLERMONT, Defendant., No. 5:24-CV-173-MMH-PRL, 2025 WL 605059, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2025) (rule of sequestration does not apply to depositions, absent particularized showing of specific facts warranting the relief; the correct procedure for seeking to exclude a person from deposition is to seek a protective order); see also Order (from same case, awarding fees and explaining sequestration concept in depositions), CM/ECF Document No. 31, filed Jan. 31, 2025)</p><p>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int'l Mar. Org. No. 1012531, Defendant., No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 754124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (ordering witness to travel overseas to United States for in-person deposition, finding that while remote depositions are the new normal, there remains nothing unusual about insisting that a key witness appear in person)</p>
March 4, 2025
<p><br></p><p><span>In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a new ruling on a little-known but powerful tool: the use of depositions as </span><u>affidavits</u><span>. As Garrity discusses, a deposition does </span><u>not</u><span> need to meet the requirements of trial-oriented Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 (which requires a showing that the party against whom the deposition is offered had notice and a chance to examine the deposition) when it is offered in proceedings that allow testimony by affidavit, such as at summary judgment.</span></p><p>SHOW NOTES</p><p>Surety v. Co. v. Dwight A. Herald, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-GNS-HBB, 2025 WL 627523 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025) (deposition/examination under oath of witness taken in underlying state-court personal injury could be used in federal declaratory judgment actions at summary judgment time, as deposition meets form of affidavit)</p><p>Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, et al., 960 F. 2d 765 (8<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1992) (deposition need not be admissible at trial to be properly considered in opposition to motions for summary judgment; deposition inadmissible at trial because one of the defendants did not receive proper notice and did not attend the deposition was properly used to create issues of fact justifying denial of summary judgment)</p><p>Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 ... plainly allows consideration of “affidavits” and we find nothing which requires that term to be construed within the limitations of Rule 32(a).”).</p><p>First Gaston Bank of North Carolina v. City of Hickory, 691 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. N.C. 2010) (citing cases rejecting proposition that FRCP 32 limits use of depositions in proceedings where evidence in affidavit form is admissible; pointing out that to the extent a party objects that they didn’t have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose deposition from some other cases being offered, “the same objection can frequently be made as to affidavits filed in connection with motions for summary judgment”)</p><p>Tingey v. Radionics, 193 F. App'x 747, 765–66 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment where trial court, relying on FRCP 32, excluded from consideration in opposition to summary judgment a deposition that plaintiff took of physician in separate state proceeding, where defendant was not party to that proceeding and had not been given notice of deposition; depositions can be used as affidavits in proceedings where affidavits are admissible; to illustrate, “[p]arties may file affidavits in support of summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The “remedy” for this non-confronted affidavit testimony is to file an opposing affidavit, not to complain that one was not present and permitted to cross-examine when the affidavit was signed. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has permitted a party to introduce deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes against a party who was not present at the deposition, by construing the deposition as an affidavit. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966–67 (9th Cir.1981)”)</p><p>Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, 291 F.3d 738, 751 (11th Cir. 2002) (without analyzing scope and extent of application of FRCP 32, court broadly said that “Depositions are generally admissible provided that the party against whom they are admitted was present, represented, or reasonably noticed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a), and are specifically allowed in consideration of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A deposition taken in a different proceeding is admissible if the party against whom it is offered was provided with an opportunity to examine the deponent. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1).”)</p><p>Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (explicitly allowing citation to depositions for or against summary judgment)</p><p>8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2142 (1970))) (as are at least as good as affidavits and should be usable whenever an affidavit would be permissible, even where the conditions or requirements for use at trial under rule 32 are not met) </p>
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at [email protected] for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.
