10 Cited authorities

  1. Hall v. Clifton Precision, a Div. of Litton Systems, Inc.

    150 F.R.D. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1993)   Cited 148 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conferences between witnesses and counsel are prohibited both during the deposition and during recesses
  2. Athridge v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.

    184 F.R.D. 200 (D.D.C. 1998)   Cited 40 times
    Affirming that this Circuit is "one of the Circuits which construe the attorney-client privilege strictly" and thus, an attorney's communications are privileged when their disclosure would reveal the content of the client's communication to the lawyer.
  3. Armstrong v. Hussmann Corp.

    163 F.R.D. 299 (E.D. Mo. 1995)   Cited 19 times
    Noting that Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) "has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case"
  4. Damaj v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.

    164 F.R.D. 559 (N.D. Okla. 1995)   Cited 17 times
    Choosing not to implement the Hall standard that counsel should not consult with clients even during recesses and evening breaks
  5. Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown

    115 F.R.D. 292 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 23 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding attorney was personally liable, without reimbursement from client, for costs of deposition of plaintiff where counsel's "contentious, abusive, obstructive, scurrilous, and insulting conduct" resulting in comments and statements other than objections to form of question apparent on 132 out of 147 pages of deposition transcript, constituted bad faith, intended to harass and delay and reflected willful disregard for orderly process of justice.
  6. International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.

    91 F.R.D. 277 (D.D.C. 1981)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that except in rare circumstances where it can be shown that some serious harm would result from answering a deposition question, an objection must be made, and an answer given
  7. American Directory Service Agency v. Beam

    131 F.R.D. 635 (D.D.C. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    131 F.R.D. 635 (D.D.C. 1990) AMERICAN DIRECTORY SERVICE AGENCY, Plaintiff, v. Amy BEAM, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 87-1653. United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 30, 1990 Counterclaim defendants moved to dismiss copyright infringement claims which had been filed against them, and parties moved and cross-moved for award of sanctions based on counsels' conduct at discovery deposition. The District Court, Deborah A. Robinson, United States Magistrate, held that: (1) individual officers

  8. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,113 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  9. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,123 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
  10. Rule 32 - Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 32   Cited 2,309 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for using deposition testimony at trial