10,000 Depositions Later Podcast By cover art

10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

By: Jim Garrity
Listen for free

  • Summary

  • 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.
    Show more Show less
Episodes
  • Episode 138 - When Must a Party Produce Documents to Be Used By a 30(b)(6) Designee at Deposition (Or Reviewed Beforehand?)

    Episode 138 - When Must a Party Produce Documents to Be Used By a 30(b)(6) Designee at Deposition (Or Reviewed Beforehand?)
    May 15 2024

    In this episode, Jim tackles the problem of 30(b)(6) witnesses showing up with voluminous notes and documents to use in refreshing their memory about the topics to be addressed. Are these witnesses automatically required to give you those notes and materials ahead of time? If not, is there anything you can do to get them beforehand? And, what about getting copies of documents these and other deponents looked at before the deposition but didn't bring with? For the answers to these and other questions, listen in. And thanks for being a loyal listener of the podcast! We appreciate you!

    SHOW NOTES

    ChampionX LLC, f/k/a Windrock, Inc. v. Resonance Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-CV-288-TAV-JE M (E. D. Tennessee Oct. 19, 2023) (providing that documents used during a deposition to refresh witnesses recollection must be produced to the adverse party while deposition is in progress, and need not be produced ahead of time, barring some other obligation)

    Arrowood Indem. Co. The Lubrizol Corp. v. United States Fire Ins. Co., No. 1:10 CV 2871, 2015 WL 12734892, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2015) (“Fed. R. Evid. 612. Rule 612 applies to depositions and deposition testimony through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)”)

    Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 317 (3d Cir. 1985) This rule is applicable to depositions and deposition testimony by operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c) (“Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the trial under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”)

    Antero Res. Corp. v. Tejas Tubular Prod., Inc., 516 F. Supp. 3d 752, 753 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (“Importantly, Rule 612 applies to deposition testimony”)

    Antero Resources Corporation v. Tejas Tubular Products, Inc., 2021 WL363550, No. 2:19-CV-804 (S. D. Ohio Feb.2, 2021) (if witness uses documents for a testimonial purpose–as [the corporate representative did ]-any claim of work product protection over those documents is waived; further holding that, where conflict exists between the command of Fed. R. Evid. 612 to disclose materials used to refresh recollection, and protection provided by the attorney-client privilege, the weight of authority holds that privilege is waived).

    United States v. Holden, 557 F.3d 698, 703–04 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 612 does not apply where a witness refers to documents for purposes other than refreshing recollection”)

    K & S Assocs., Inc. v. Am. Ass'n of Physicists in Med., No. 3:09-1108, 2012 WL 4364087, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 21, 2012) (citing Nutramax Lab., Inc., 183 F.R.D. at 468, 473) (finding that documents were used for a “testimonial purpose” where the witness's review of them “unavoidably enhanced his recollection of events”)

    Gilbert v. Atlantic Trust Co., N.A., 2005 WL8176938 (D. N.H. Nov. 17, 2005) (order denying motion to compel documents reviewed by deponent prior to deposition, under FRE 612, because of movant's failure to establish predicate during deposition)

    FRE 612 - Writings Used to Refresh A Witness
    Show more Show less
    21 mins
  • Episode 137 - Deploying Multiple Lawyers to the Same Deposition? Follow These Tips to Secure Fee Awards for All

    Episode 137 - Deploying Multiple Lawyers to the Same Deposition? Follow These Tips to Secure Fee Awards for All
    May 2 2024
    Do you sometimes send multiple lawyers to depositions? If so, it's important to know how to maximize your odds of taxing each lawyer's fees when you prevail in the action and file your fee petition. As Jim Garrity says, it's easy to avoid traps, but it's also easy to step into them. In this episode he provides bright-line guidance for making your fee petition a successful one. Have a great week!SHOW NOTESBasic PrincipleGradisher v. Check Enf't Unit, Inc., No. 1:00-CV-401, 2003 WL 187416, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2003) (“There is no hard and fast rule allowing or preventing more than one attorney from attending a deposition, hearing, or trial on behalf of a prevailing party”)Burden of Fee ApplicantAm. C.L. Union of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 432 (11th Cir. 1999) (“Thus, a fee applicant is entitled to recover for the hours of multiple attorneys if he satisfies his burden of showing that the time spent by those attorneys reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and is the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation. But the fee applicant has the burden of showing that, and where there is an objection raising the point, it is not a make-believe burden”)Burden of Party Opposing Fee AwardAm. C.L. Union of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 428 (11th Cir. 1999) (party opposing fee petition has burden also, and is obligated to provide specific and reasonably precise objections and proof in seeking to reduce fee aware due to a lack of billing judgment)Am. C.L. Union of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 429 (11th Cir. 1999) (The Supreme Court rejected that position, reasoning that fee shifting statutes “favor[ ] treating a case as an inclusive whole, rather than as atomized line-items.” Jean, 496 U.S. at 161–62, 110 S.Ct. at 2320. Nothing about the holding in Jean precludes a fee opponent from challenging a fee request on the basis that an excessive number of hours were billed on some discrete task within the case. Moreover, our decisions contemplate a task-by-task examination of the hours billed. See, e.g., Loranger, 10 F.3d at 782–83 (noting that 100 hours for the task of preparing a fee request in the case was excessive); Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1398 (11th Cir.1996) (disallowing redundant hours billed for the task of deposing witnesses).Fees Not ReducedAquilino v. Univ. of Kansas, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1326 (D. Kan. 2000) (“With respect to the depositions of plaintiff and Dr. Linda Stone-Ferrier and the period of jury deliberations, the Court finds that plaintiff's decision to employ two attorneys was reasonable. Both attorneys were extensively involved in the case and their appearance at key depositions was reasonable”)Clements v. Prudential Protective Servs., LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 604, 617 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (finding “nothing ‘duplicative’ with regard to having two lawyers represent [the p]laintiff” where the defendant objected to “two attorneys attending depositions”), aff'd, 659 F. App'x 820 (6th Cir. 2016))Jones v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 912, 920 (S.D. Ohio 1981) (defendant’s protests in opposition to fee petition undermined by fact that they also had two attorneys present at depositions)Wajcman v. Inv. Corp. of Palm Beach, No. 07-80912-CIV, 2009 WL 10668140, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2009) (“The law is clear in that where multiple attorneys perform work on a case, they may each be compensated, so long as the attorneys' efforts are not unreasonably duplicative. See Barnes, 168 F.3d at 432 (“[a]n award for time spent by two or more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation”)(quoting Johnson v. University College of Univ. of Ala. in Birmingham, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983)); Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301-1302 (observing that multiple attorneys may be compensated for their work on a case “if they are not unreasonably doing the same work and are being compensated for the distinct contribution of each lawyer”)(citing Johnson, supra)Fees Reduced or DeniedDuckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1398 (11th Cir. 1996) (some fees disallowed for redundancy of work in deposition attended by two attorneys for same party; “Plaintiff has asserted that only one attorney prepared and conducted depositions of parties and witnesses, while both attorneys attended all of the depositions. Because a comparison of the two sets of time entries largely attests to this explanation, the court has subtracted half of each attorney's hours spent for mere attendance of depositions”)Van Cleve v. Soc'y of St. Vincent De Paul, No. C03-1019, 2005 WL 1868876, at *4 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 4, 2005) (declining without explanation to award fees for two lawyers to attend depositions; saying that one lawyer prepared for the depositions, and then a second lawyer attended the depositions as well)Baker v. Nat'l Seating Co., No. 3:05-CV-...
    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Episode 136 - Every Word Matters. See Them with Zoom's Live-Caption Feature.

    Episode 136 - Every Word Matters. See Them with Zoom's Live-Caption Feature.
    Apr 24 2024

    Jim Garrity's observation is that many litigators are still not using Zoom’s live-caption feature in depositions. This setting is perfect for clients and other participants who want to watch remote depositions, but can’t play audio without disrupting others. It’s also excellent for you or others on your team to ensure you asked the question you planned and got the answer you think you heard. Some great tips in this episode, as always. (And can we ask you a favor? Would you take an extra 18 seconds, go to the rating section wherever you get your podcast, and leave us a five star rating? We don't charge a dime for the tremendous research and production that goes into every single episode, so the only way you can give us a thumbs up is with a sweet 5-star rating. We know leaving ratings is a hassle, but it really means so much to our production team. Every new five-star rating we get energizes the whole crew. It's actually more important than money because it validates our work, and let's us know that you like and are finding value in the episodes. Thanks!)
    Show more Show less
    5 mins
Economics Personal Success
Show more Show less

What listeners say about 10,000 Depositions Later Podcast

Average customer ratings
Overall
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    7
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    0
Performance
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    7
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    0
Story
  • 5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    7
  • 4 Stars
    0
  • 3 Stars
    0
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    0

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Audible.com reviews

Amazon reviews
Sort by:
Filter by:
  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for ☺️

Beyond helpful

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.

Report this

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Dima Tuchinsky

Very succinct, practical & helpful;

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

Report this

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Joseph LaFleur

Excellent info

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!

Report this

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars
Profile Image for Amazon Customer

great

another great topic with ideas and suggestions on to bring in to your own practice.

Report this

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!