Some of you may be surprised to learn that "annoyance" is in fact a valid legal objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (authorizing court to issue protective order to prevent "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" resulting from discovery requests). Of course, the whole system and especially discovery is annoying to start with, so something would have to be pretty frickin' annoying to justify making this objection all by itself.
I haven't seen Request No. 9 itself, so I can't say whether it was just annoying or annoying as a matter of law.
Last month the New York Times did a fantastic video reenactment of some truly ridiculous deposition testimony. See "What Is a Photocopier? (Deposition, Dramatized)," Lowering the Bar (Apr. 28, 2014) (direct link here). They are looking for more of that kind of thing, which I think is great news, and they asked me for help, which I also think is great. The posts linked below are the ones I recommended as mentioning possible candidates for reenactment, although I unfortunately don't actually have all of the transcripts.
I only have two pages of this depo, and there is almost certainly other good stuff in it, but these two pages alone would justify a reenactment and possibly also an off-Broadway run. Even if it ends up only being a monologue, it's an amazing monologue. I'm pretty confident the NYT will be reenacting "Follow the Chicken," and you will likely be reenacting it in your own mind for some time to come.
Lowrey is the company's former public safety officer, and is expected to testify that he warned about certain dangers but was ignored. At Lowrey's deposition, Greka's attorneys did ask about that testimony, but according to the report, "focused much of their questioning on his claims that alienlike creatures emerge from his closet and put pinholes into his chest and those of his family members."
Needless to say, I would very much like to have this transcript.
This was about a 2008 hearing in the Connecticut state legislature in which the committee was considering a resolution to "exonerate" two women convicted of witchcraft in the 1600s. Granted, that was a long time ago, but did involve women being wrongly tortured and executed, so I thought maybe the committee chair could have taken it a little more seriously. I kept thinking of Fred Willard's clueless announcer from "Best in Show."
In 2011, the Wall Street Journal quoted testimony given by Scott Rothstein after he had pleaded guilty and was interested in cooperating with anybody who asked. (WSJ reports here and here.) In my favorite excerpt, he talked about how he tried to keep drugs out of his law office—though not because he had any issue with drugs: "It troubled me, probably because they were actually dealing the pot out of the office while I was in the middle of running a several-hundred-million-dollar Ponzi scheme." Yeah, I mean, how stupid can you be?
Joe Francis of "Girls Gone Wild" infamy (and frequent denunciations here) has been forced to give a number of depositions and has acted like a grownup in approximately none of them. In the one referenced in this post, he just pretended not to know what any English words meant. In a previous depo he reportedly made "repeated attempts to disrupt the deposition with flatulence," but I'm not sure if the NYT has any interest in reenacting that.
This post was about a Missouri case that must have generated at least three good depo transcripts, namely those of a young mother and the two identical twins with whom she had slept (on two different occasions) while they were all in town for the rodeo. (The involvement of identical twins is the answer to the title question.)
This one is too short to reenact, but too good not to mention here.
Again, I would greatly appreciate getting copies of any of the relevant transcripts. Also, I'm sure that many of you have transcripts or excerpts that are at least as ridiculous as these. If so please send them to me. I'll pass on the best ones, and as always will provide credit or anonymity, whichever you want.
TMZ has posted several clips taken from the Biebs' recent 4.5-hour deposition in a case involving allegations that his bodyguard beat up a photographer. In this clip, which TMZ calls "Arrogant Bieber," it has put together examples of Bieber displaying his obvious contempt for the other side's lawyer and the whole process. At one point, for example, he claims not to remember whether he's ever been to Australia, just to be difficult.
The bit where he adjusts his outfit while looking into the camera (or possibly at a TV monitor) is also pretty good.
In this next one ("Disrespectful Bieber") he answers a number of the questions by more or less whispering while gazing directly into the camera. Does he think the jury will consist of teenage girls? But that's not the real highlight. The lawyer asks him whether Usher was "instrumental" to his career, which is followed by some argument about whether that's relevant. (Not sure why it would be, but that's not the point here.) Then there seems to have been a short break. When they come back, Bieber returns to that question and tries to emphasize his own role (at Usher's expense). But what he actually says is, "I was detrimental to my own career."
Which is true, but not responsive to the question.