10,000 Depositions Later Podcast Podcast Por Jim Garrity arte de portada

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

De: Jim Garrity
Escúchala gratis

OFERTA POR TIEMPO LIMITADO. Obtén 3 meses por US$0.99 al mes. Obtén esta oferta.

From Jim Garrity, the country’s leading deposition expert, comes this podcast for hardcore litigators. The subject? Taking and defending depositions.


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.


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.


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: “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.”


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

All rights reserved. Desarrollo Personal Economía Éxito Personal
Episodios
  • Episode 162 - Your Mute Button is Career Insurance

    Episode 162 - Your Mute Button is Career Insurance
    Sep 27 2025

    In this episode, Jim Garrity uses a pending bar disciplinary proceeding against a Florida lawyer as a potent reminder of the consequences of failing to ensure that your conversations during breaks in remote (virtual) depositions are not heard by others. As always, he offers practical guidance to help you avoid this potentially career-ending mistake. Citations to the referenced case are in the show notes.

    SHOW NOTES

    Zoom community forum reporting audio feed despite activation of mute button (https://community.zoom.com/t5/Zoom-Meetings/Participant-on-mute-yet-I-can-still-hear-them/m-p/142674)

    Excerpt from Zoom’s terms of service at https://www.zoom.com/en/trust/terms/ (You agree [that the software and services are provided “as is” and that Zoom makes no guarantee] . . . .that the services or software will...be...error free. . . . [Y]ou will be solely responsible for any damage to you resulting from the use of the services or software. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the services or software remains with you”)

    Complaint, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed February 1, 2024); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)

    Respondent’s Response to Complaint, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed March 11, 2024); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)

    Report of Referee, The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed April 28, 2025); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)

    Amended Initial Brief (attorney appealing Report & Recommendation of Referee), The Florida Bar v. Ferro, Case No. SC-2024-0156 (Fla. Sup. Ct. filed September 15); Florida Bar File Nos. Case Nos. 2023 – 30,035 (09B), 2023–30,115 (09B), and 2023-30,187(09B)
    Más Menos
    9 m
  • Episode 161: Unfinished Testimony - Can You Use That Partial Transcript?

    Episode 161: Unfinished Testimony - Can You Use That Partial Transcript?
    Sep 11 2025

    Today, Jim Garrity examines a critical issue in trial practice: whether an incomplete deposition—cut short when the deponent becomes unavailable—can be admitted at trial, particularly when the opposing party had no opportunity for cross-examination. Drawing on a new Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jim explores the court’s decision, the key factors trial lawyers should argue for or against exclusion, and the balancing test that should be used when essential testimony hangs in the balance. Discover practical strategies for both offering and opposing use of incomplete deposition transcripts in high-stakes litigation. Thanks for listening!

    SHOW NOTES

    Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management, et al., No. 24-5222, 2025 WL 2434894 (6th Cir. August 25, 2025) (reversing trial court’s ruling that deposition was categorically inadmissible because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a 30 B6 deponent before his death)

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) (setting three-part test for admissibility of deposition testimony at trial)

    Treharne v. Callahan, 426 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1970) (court upheld the district court's discretionary admission of written interrogatory answers given by the now-deceased defendant, even though the plaintiff could not cross-examine; under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, answers to interrogatories can be used to the same extent as depositions, which are admissible if the witness is dead; further, the need for the evidence—being the only defense evidence—outweighed the lack of cross-examination, especially where death was not caused by the party offering the evidence and there was no fault involved)

    Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (magistrate declined to exclude a deposition taken without defense counsel present, even though the witness died before cross-examination could occur; under Rule 32(a), depositions of deceased witnesses may be admitted if the party had notice and opportunity to participate, and the prejudice to the party proffering the deposition (who would lose critical evidence) outweighed potential prejudice to the opponent. Court proposed that any prejudice could be minimized by stipulating to facts the defense might have developed via cross-examination, reducing the impact of any lost impeachment opportunity)

    Derewecki v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1965) (trial and appeals courts admitted decedent’s incomplete depositions as evidence, despite the absence of cross-examination by the defendant who had no chance to cross-examine before the witness died; Rule 26 authorized admission of depositions when the deponent is deceased as long as the circumstances justified it, and both parties had agreed the deposition was “completed” for evidentiary purposes; further, the harm in excluding the sole direct evidence of how the accident occurred outweighed the right to cross-examination. Courts must consider whether the lack of cross is due to fault; here, no such fault was shown)

    Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1969) (deposition of a witness who died before any cross-examination by the adverse party was admitted in bench trial; where there was no realistic possibility that cross-examination would have materially aided the party, exclusion was not required. Further, deposition testimony corroborated by other evidence; thus, lack of cross-examination did not affect the outcome)

    In re Reingold, 157 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1998) (testimony excluded at trial level; exclusion reversed. Trial court excluded party-plaintiff’s perpetuation deposition, taken while the plaintiff was gravely ill and ended before cross-examination could be completed due to the witness's declining condition and ultimate death; Fifth Circuit held this exclusion to be a clear abuse of discretion and granted mandamus relief directing admission of the video deposition; FRCP 32(a) creates strong presumption favoring admission of a deceased witness’s deposition. Exclusion is only justified by a specific and particularized showing of prejudice, such as stating what crucial areas would have been dealt with in cross-examination; a mere generalized complaint about the lack of cross is insufficient. Since the opposing party had already conducted a substantial deposition of the witness in prior proceedings, the risks of prejudice were further minimized)
    Más Menos
    16 m
  • Episode 160 - Depo Case Roundup for the Week of August 25, 2025

    Episode 160 - Depo Case Roundup for the Week of August 25, 2025
    Aug 23 2025
    This week’s roundup spotlights four brand-new deposition rulings from across the country. Two address when plaintiffs may appear remotely—what courts require, what constitutes good cause, and the practical showings that move the needle. The other two confront a quiet but consequential trial hazard: deposition testimony that’s read or played for the jury yet never placed into the record. (Many reporters pause their keyboards during read-ins, assuming the material is already transcribed—an easy oversight that can derail an appeal if the missing testimony is essential.) Join us for a concise tour of the standards, the pitfalls, and the simple steps to protect your record before it’s too late. It's another critical episode from the country's leading expert on depositions. Citations and parentheticals to every case discussed appear in our show notes. Have a great week!SHOW NOTES**Added after episode aired**White v. Lozano, No. 13-24-00336-CV, 2025 WL 1788040, at *9 (Tex. App. June 30, 2025) (court reporter failed to transcribe the depositions or include the video recordings in the appellate record. This was error, but, because White's counsel did not object to the reporter's failure, he cannot now complain of it on appeal)**Original Case List**Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management, et al., No. 24-5222, 2025 WL 2434894 (6th Cir. August 25, 2025) (reversing trial court’s ruling that deposition was categorically inadmissible because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a 30 B6 deponent before his death)Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) (setting three-part test for admissibility of deposition testimony at trial)Treharne v. Callahan, 426 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1970) (court upheld the district court's discretionary admission of written interrogatory answers given by the now-deceased defendant, even though the plaintiff could not cross-examine; under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, answers to interrogatories can be used to the same extent as depositions, which are admissible if the witness is dead; further, the need for the evidence—being the only defense evidence—outweighed the lack of cross-examination, especially where death was not caused by the party offering the evidence and there was no fault involved)Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (magistrate declined to exclude a deposition taken without defense counsel present, even though the witness died before cross-examination could occur; under Rule 32(a), depositions of deceased witnesses may be admitted if the party had notice and opportunity to participate, and the prejudice to the party proffering the deposition (who would lose critical evidence) outweighed potential prejudice to the opponent. Court proposed that any prejudice could be minimized by stipulating to facts the defense might have developed via cross-examination, reducing the impact of any lost impeachment opportunity)Derewecki v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1965) (trial and appeals courts admitted decedent’s incomplete depositions as evidence, despite the absence of cross-examination by the defendant who had no chance to cross-examine before the witness died; Rule 26 authorized admission of depositions when the deponent is deceased as long as the circumstances justified it, and both parties had agreed the deposition was “completed” for evidentiary purposes; further, the harm in excluding the sole direct evidence of how the accident occurred outweighed the right to cross-examination. Courts must consider whether the lack of cross is due to fault; here, no such fault was shown)Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1969) (deposition of a witness who died before any cross-examination by the adverse party was admitted in bench trial; where there was no realistic possibility that cross-examination would have materially aided the party, exclusion was not required. Further, deposition testimony corroborated by other evidence; thus, lack of cross-examination did not affect the outcome)In re Reingold, 157 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1998) (testimony excluded at trial level; exclusion reversed. Trial court excluded party-plaintiff’s perpetuation deposition, taken while the plaintiff was gravely ill and ended before cross-examination could be completed due to the witness's declining condition and ultimate death; Fifth Circuit held this exclusion to be a clear abuse of discretion and granted mandamus relief directing admission of the video deposition; FRCP 32(a) creates strong presumption favoring admission of a deceased witness’s deposition. Exclusion is only justified by a specific and particularized showing of prejudice, such as stating what crucial areas would have been dealt with in cross-examination; a mere generalized complaint about the lack of cross is insufficient. Since the opposing party had already conducted a substantial deposition of the witness in prior proceedings, the risks of ...
    Más Menos
    18 m
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
Incredible resource for those seeking to improve their knowledge on depositions. Excellent examples, well cited, succinct and to the point without unnecessary pontification. Garrity’s extensive experience makes him a more superior expert than those who have written books with a fraction of the experience.

Beyond helpful

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
Very succinct, practical and helpful; easy to follow and listen on the go
Strongly recommend lawyers looking to brush up on deps and some practical tips

Very succinct, practical & helpful;

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
This podcast is a game changer for me. I deal with these argumentative questions often and this is the answer I’ve been looking for!

Excellent info

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.
another great topic with ideas and suggestions on to bring in to your own practice.

great

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.