We hold that attorneys may confer with witnesses during requested recesses in depositions only to determine whether to assert a privilege. For the attorney-client privilege to apply to these conferences, however, counsel must state on the deposition record (1) the fact that a conference took place, (2) the subject of the conference, and (3) the result of the conference. In the instant case, we conclude that the communications between the witness and plaintiffs counsel during the break in the witness's deposition are discoverable because plaintiffs counsel requested the recess in the deposition and failed to make a sufficient, contemporaneous record of the privileged communications.The case is called Coyote Springs Inv. v. Eighth Judicial District Court and you can find it here.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Nevada Supreme Court sets out very specific rules for conduct during depositions
There are many cases out there discussing what constitutes improper conduct during depositions. Many of them discuss conduct that any litigator will tell you is not uncommon, like running objections, personal attacks, frequent interruptions during questioning and so on. Unfortunately, because the conduct is most often away from the court and not under the direct supervision of judges, the problems continue. In a recent case, however, the Supreme Court of Nevada has set very specific rules of conduct for one common occurrence during depositions, holding that: