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

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 159 - Lessons from the Front Lines: Budget-Friendly Depositions: Using a Videographer to Tape & Transcribe Depositions

    Episode 159 - Lessons from the Front Lines: Budget-Friendly Depositions: Using a Videographer to Tape & Transcribe Depositions
    Aug 6 2025

    Are deposition expenses busting your budget? In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a clever strategy conceived by a southern California litigator to sharply cut the costs of deposition transcripts. It's yet another effort by trial lawyers to combat the insane costs of stenographic reporting, and one worth trying. The show notes point to seventeen relevant filings on this issue, four federal rules, and a website for a service that is actively helping lawyers cut deposition costs.

    Like this podcast? Our production crew LOVES 5-star reviews. They're free, fast to leave, and provide us the kind of appreciative good vibes we crave. Would you mind taking ten seconds and clicking on the five-star rating? Thanks!


    SHOW NOTES:

    Note: All filings listed below are from the case Black v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1990-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)

    Plaintiff’s Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A) (initial application by Plaintiff) PACER Doc. 153

    Defendants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 160.

    Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP 30(b)(3)(A), PACER DOC. 153-1

    Defendant Tutterow’s Notice Of Joinder In Defendant City Of San Diego’s Opposition To Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition, PACER Doc. 162.

    Defendants Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 164

    Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A), PACER Doc. 165

    Second Supplemental Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiff Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition. Etc., PACER Doc. 170

    Defendants Second Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 171

    Order (Magistrate Judge) Denying Plaintiff’s Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 172

    Plaintiff’s Notice Of Objection To Order Denying Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition, Etc. PACER Doc. 173 (appealing magistrate judge’s order to district judge)

    Defendant’s Response To Plaintiff’s Objection To Magistrate’s Order Denying Claims Application For Leave, PACER Doc. 174

    Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Response To Player’s Objection To Magistrate’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Application, Etc., PACER Doc. 175

    Order (District Judge) Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections, PACER Doc. 178

    Order Granting Joint Motion For Protective Order, PACER Doc. 32 (providing that certain information was to remain confidential)

    Modified Protective Order, PACER Doc. 156

    Readback.legal (reporting agency dedicated to reducing deposition -related costs; interview of Readback’s Chief Legal Officer in podcast episode 87)

    1993 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (noting that where a deposition isn't stenographically recorded, transcripts are often later prepared by counsels' own law firms

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(a) (allowing lawyers to capture deposition testimony by stenographic means only, audio only, video only, or any combination of the three)

    FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) and FRCP 32(c) (providing that if counsel chooses to record a deposition by video only and plan to present it at trial or hearing, they must provide a transcript of the testimony to the other parties and the court)

    Readback.legal (innovative and budget-friendly service advertised as "certified, court-admissible deposition service built for legal professionals who need clarity, speed, and accuracy, without relying on outdated stenography")
    Más Menos
    13 m
  • Episode 158 - Using Videotaped Deposition Clips in Openings and Closings

    Episode 158 - Using Videotaped Deposition Clips in Openings and Closings
    Jul 2 2025
    In this episode, Jim Garrity argues for more frequent videotaping of depositions, especially those of parties and witnesses likely to be unavailable at trial. The reason? Unlike live witnesses - who are generally called once in trial - videotaped testimony can be played two or more times. This technique utilizes one of the most effective tools of persuasion ever invented, repetition, borrowed straight from Madison Avenue, where repetition is everything. Clips played during the trial, during closing, and sometimes in opening by consent or court order, allow you to essentially present the same witness and testimony multiple times. This kind of repetition isn't possible with live witnesses, and is far superior to reading deposition transcripts to the jury. In a world where people are accustomed to getting their information through video, reading a transcript of testimony is likely to test your jurors' attention span (and patience). Garrity discusses a UCLA professor's "7-38-55 rule" to underscore the point. The gist of this rule is that when people communicate, only 7% of the message is conveyed through words, 38% through tone and voice, and a whopping 55% through body language. That's what makes the presentation of deposition testimony by video clips so powerful. Listen in!SHOW NOTESSmith, et al. v. City of Chicago, etc., Case No. 21-cv-1159, 2025 WL 1744919 (N. D. Ill. June 24, 2025) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but allowing it in closing argument that was admitted into evidence during trial, over objections by defendants that permitting video testimony during closing statements would be “unfairly prejudicial because it emphasizes testimony that is presented by video through repetition, and that opportunity does not exist for a live witness”)Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. C-05-00334 RMW, 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2008) (denying use of video depo testimony in opening, but would consider allowing reading from transcript; “If the parties wish to read a portion of a deposition transcript in their opening statement, they are to exchange any excerpt with opposing counsel sufficiently in advance of opening statements so that the court can rule on any dispute over use”)Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12CV689-MMA (DHB), 2014 WL 11997809, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (collecting cases refusing to allow playing of videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements) (“See In re Ethicon, Inc., 2014 WL 505234, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 5, 2014) (“[T]he use of video clips during opening statements is precluded as to all parties ....”) (quoting In re Bard, Inc., 2013 WL 3282926, at *8 (S.D. W. Va. June 27, 2013)); Carpenter v. Forest Meadows Owners Ass'n, 2011 WL 3207778, at *7 (“Video recordings of the deposition will not be permitted.”) (emphasis in original); Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare W., No. 09–2972 KJM, 2011 WL 6396500, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2011) (denying the plaintiff's motion to use portions of videotaped depositions during opening statement); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2008 WL 190990, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“Neither side shall use any videotaped deposition testimony in its opening statement.”); but see Sadler v. Advanced Bionics, LLC, at *3 (W.D. Kent. April 1, 2013) (providing that the court “may” consider allowing the parties to utilize videotaped deposition testimony during opening statements); MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 2002 WL 32349903, at *2 (permitting party to play segments of video deposition in its opening statement))Beem v. Providence Health & Servs., No. 10-CV-0037-TOR, 2012 WL 13018728, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 19, 2012) (rejecting request to play videotaped deposition during opening, and rejecting argument by plaintiff that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3), she may use the deposition of an adverse party “for any purpose,” stating that “What Plaintiff proposes to do, is to introduce evidence during opening statement. The Court will not allow the showing of video deposition excerpts during opening statement. The motion is denied.”)K.C. ex rel. Calaway v. Schucker, No. 02-2715-STA-CGC, 2013 WL 5972192, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 8, 2013) (“there is no per se ban on the use of video excerpts of depositions in closing arguments”; also citing 88 C.J.S. Trial § 300 (2013) (“[T]here is no blanket prohibition against counsel playing selected portions of a videotaped deposition for a jury during closing argument, and trial courts have discretion to permit, or to refuse, the replaying of videotape segments in closing argument.”)MBI Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chron. Pub. Co., No. 01-C-0177-C, 2002 WL 32349903, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2002) (allowing use of video depo excerpt in opening, stating, without further discussion, that “Defendants may use excerpts from the video deposition of David Straden during opening argument. Counsel are to advise ...
    Más Menos
    14 m
  • Episode 157: Lessons from the Front Lines -Pitfalls for Plaintiffs Who Want to Appear Remotely for Deposition

    Episode 157: Lessons from the Front Lines -Pitfalls for Plaintiffs Who Want to Appear Remotely for Deposition
    Jun 23 2025

    Now that the pandemic is fading from our memories, courts are showing a renewed willingness to order plaintiffs to appear in person for their depositions, even when a plaintiff has relocated to distant places and will incur considerable expense and inconvenience if forced to travel. In this episode, Jim Garrity dissects a brand-new court ruling on the topic, explains in detail why the plaintiff in that case failed to win a protective order requiring her to travel 2,000 miles back to the litigation forum. Then he offers crucial tactical advices for both plaintiffs and defendants when fighting this battle.

    SHOW NOTES

    Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order, Krishmar-Junker v. Kingline Equipment, Inc., Case No. 23-0431-KD-B, 2025 WL 1710041 (S.D. Ala. June 18, 2025) (court refused to issue protective order where plaintiff, who moved cross-country since filing her lawsuit, claimed financial and medical hardships but failed to meet her burden of a particularized showing of harm to justify relief)
    Más Menos
    19 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.