Yes often at depositions the deponent often get over technical in a definition in order to be evasive or otherwise unhelpful to the opposition. Often the attorney will couch the client or friendly witness and deponent will take the advise to a too far extreme.
In small doses this could have a tactical advantage but in general the deponent in this instance comes off in the written transcript as a smartass. The deponents attorney's objections are mostly BS. He did a bad job.
However I thought the deposing attorney did a good job with the exception for getting mad (which may or may not have happened in the real instance and was only included in the dramatization). The attorney giving the deposition made a good record which could really backfire on the deponent with sanctions for a motion to compel or if it had gone to jury trial would likely have ticked off the jury.
At the end of the clip it said the matter never went to trial. This came off as if the whole process was a waste. However this is the norm rather than the exception. Most matters settle or are otherwise resolved before going to trial.
I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.
Originally Posted by Edgar
Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"
Mites are the fastest critters on the planet (distance covered per unit time per unit body length). I've suspected this for decades and it feels great to be proven right.
The quickest method of differentiating ISTJs and INTJs is simply to ask if they like Monty Python skits. ISTJs detest that juvenile nonsense while INTJs will perk up immediately and start reciting lines.