Some rules to remember

Posted on December 16, 2010 by Robert Boggs

There is only one reason that a lawyer can instruct his/her client not to answer at a deposition and that is if the question requires the deponent to disclose privileged communications.  So, if you are dealing with an obstreperous attorney who keeps instructing the witness not to answer have Washington Civil Rule 30(h)(3) or FRCP 30(c)(2) memorized.  Both rules state that instructions not to answer are limited to issues of privileges.  There are however situations where the attorney conducting the deposition may be using the deposition to harass his opponent or for some other nefarious reason, but the aggrieved attorney cannot just instruct the client not to answer.  In that situation the aggrieved attorney must make a motion either by getting the court on the phone or walking out with the intention of filing a motion to terminate or limit the deposition.  Washington CR 30(d) and FRCP 30(d)(3).

Tags:

Hostile Work Enviornment

Posted on December 14, 2010 by Robert Boggs

This is for the lay readers out there in the blogosphere.  I often get calls from potential clients who want to sue their employer for a "hostile work enviornment".  When I question them further it usually turns out that their supervisor is a real jerk and is creating a hostile work enviorment.  Unfortunately, I have to tell them that I cannot help.  The term "hostile work enviornment" has been tossed around in the public without an important qualifier.  That is, a cause of action exists only if the enviorment is hostile and the hostility is directed at a member of a protected class because the person is a member of that protected class.  Protected classes are classes based on race, religion, gender and so forth. Basically it is a cause of action based on discrimination.  Perhaps some day they will come up with a cause of action aimed solely at bosses that are jerks  -- we could call it a "boss-ectomy".

Tags: