Gallart-Mendia v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• calling for speculation is not a valid reason under 30(c)(2) to instruct a witness not to answer
• approving deposition questions that did not require attorney to divulge his mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories about the case
• approving deposition questions that did not require attorney to divulge his mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories about the case
• imposing sanctions on counsel for, among other things, improperly asserting the attorney-client privilege during depositions, and instructing the witness not to answer based on “an untenable and overly broad definition of attorney-client privilege”
• “Mr. Fleming egregiously violated Rule 30(c)(2) by instructing Mr. Murphy not to answer a question because his answer would be a ‘guess.’ ”
• “Objections that are argumentative or that suggest an answer to a witness are called ‘speaking objections’ and are improper under Rule 30(c)(2).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).