d their officers and counsel — “from attending the deposition.”However, the trial court’s authority to grant a protective order is limited by rule to instances in which it is necessary to “protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”The phrase “attending the deposition” is not defined in CCP Section 2025.420(b)(12) or elsewhere in California law.Then there is the federal court system. No court rule specifically addresses the question of who may attend a deposition, either in person or remotely. Federal rules drafters have left the question wide open, subject only to the district court’s authority to enter a protective order restricting attendance at the deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(c) gives the court the ability to enter “any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”Federal Rule of Evidence 615 authorizes trial courts to sequester witnesses, which would seem to provide a basis for excluding potential witnesses from depositions; however, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c) specifically states that Rule 615 does not apply to depositions.Remote Depositions Have Their Own RulesUnless remedial measures are taken, these nonwitnesses can influence testimony in ways that cannot be detected by the questioning attorney.Few court rules specifically address the integrity questions that attend remote depositions. The good news is that these issues can be comprehensively addressed by remote deposition protocols, which courts have uniformly encouraged litigants to negotiate and adopt. In the absence of a remote deposition protocol or other solution stipulated by the parties, courts have used their general powers to supervise pretrial discovery to dictate who may attend remote depositions. Obtaining a protective order restricting the presence of nonwitnesses at remote depositions usually

However, since the FRCP revisions, there is no automatic witness sequestration from depositions at the request of a party under the Federal Rules. Federal Rule of Evidence 615 does state that witnesses must be excluded at a party’s request, but according to Rule 30(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence, except Rules 103 and 615.” Thus, the exclusion rule from FRE 615 only applies at trial, and while courts may retain the authority to exclude witnesses from depositions under FRCP 26(c) by issuing a protective order “designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is conducted”, witnesses are not automatically excluded from federal court depositions at the request of a party.

Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 282 (1989). So in this context we can revisit Mil. R. Evid. 615, as well as look at Fed. R. Evid. 615, in the context of Guthrie. Here is the link and blurb from Federal Evidence Review.Prosecutor did not violate the trial court’s sequestration order by permitting contact with the victim witness during an overnight recess, and where no improper or prejudicial contact was shown, in United States v. Guthrie, _ F.3d _ (6th Cir. 2009) (Nos. 07-6215, 07-6286).

noting when there are substantive changes to the rules. On December 1, 2023, such a change took place when three amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence took effect.The first amendment was to Federal Rule of Evidence 106. This Rule deals with the introduction of the remainder of a statement or related statements when a party only introduces a portion of a statement. The Rule was amended to make it clear that there can be no hearsay objection to admitting the remainder or related statement, if in fairness the remainder or related statement ought to be considered. This change was made because “[c]ourts have been in conflict over whether completing evidence properly required for completion under Rule 106 can be admitted over a hearsay objection.’ Advisory Committee Note. In addition, the Rule was amended to make it clear that it covers all statements, including oral statements that have not been recorded and statements made through conduct or sign language.The second amendment was to Federal Rule of Evidence 615. This Rule governs the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom. The Rule was amended in two ways. First, the rule was changed to clarify that a court in entering an order under the Rule not only can physically exclude a witness from the courtroom, but also prohibit excluded witnesses from learning about, obtaining, or being provided with trial testimony. Second, the Rule was changed to make it clear that the exception from exclusion for the representative of corporate or other entities is limited to one designated representative per entity. However, the amendment still allows a court to exercise discretion to allow an entity-party to “swap” one representative for another as the trial progresses, so long as only one witness-representative is exempt at any one time.The final, and perhaps most significant, amendment was to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admission of expert testimony. The amended Rule now reads as follows:A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowl

the software savings is a question I can’t answer. But, it bears consideration. Further, there may be authentication questions if a producing party re-links a “target” to the transmitting email. How can anyone be reasonably sure that the re-linked document is identical to the prior target?[1]Norris v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2022 WL 5054099, at *5 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2022).[2] Additionally, I have heard discussions where members of the defense bar suggest that they prefer to not have an ESI protocol incorporated into a court order. The theory is that violation of an unincorporated protocol is less likely to result in sanctions than violation of a court order and it is easier to modify an agreement than an order. While I disagree with that analysis, seeShould an ESI Protocol Be Incorporated Into a Court Order?, that concern may be a consideration when the court takes a strong enforce-the-agreement position. [3]See, e.g.,Pending Amendments to the Federal Rules (discussing pending amendment to Fed.R.Evid. 615).[4] Tom O’Connor has pointed to potential preservation or spoliation issues. Are Hyperlinks the same as Attachments? Judge Parker opinion Nichols v. Noom (digitalwarroom.com). [5]Can a Producing Party Refuse to Produce Linked Attachments to E-Mail? | Ball in your Court (craigball.net).pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-167702.pp-multiple-authors-layout-boxed.multiple-authors-target-the-content.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { width: 80px !important; height: 80px !important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-167702.pp-multiple-authors-layout-boxed.multiple-authors-target-the-content.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { border-style: none !important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-167702.pp-multiple-authors-layout-boxed.multiple-authors-target-the-content.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { border-radius: 50% !important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-167702.pp-multiple-authors-layout-bo

It was okay to fail to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the defendant's statements were obtained in violation of Miranda, because the defendant didn't request one. Unsurprisingly, the 10th joins the other circuits in holding the government may designate a case agent responsible for an investigation as its representative under Fed. R. Evid. 615(2) so that the agent can listen to all the testimony. But, because the government did not designate the case agent as its representative, the d.ct. erred by failing to instruct him to leave the courtroom when the rule of exclusion was invoked.

The Board held that even if this was an error, the Respondent has not shown that it was prejudiced by Carter's presence in the hearing room. See Fed.R.Evid. 615; see also Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 6244 (West 2004) (no time is specified for making a sequestration motion).