In re First Commodity Corp. of Boston Customer Accounts Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that Rule 30(d)(3) requires unreasonableness and “is not designed to stop an uncomfortable but relevant interrogation or to forestall the elicitation of testimony damaging to a party’s case.”’
• noting that under Rule 611(c), the direct examiner at a deposition “could still ask leading questions if the deponent is a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party”
• considering requests for medical documents and concluding “[i]f plaintiff believed that the request was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence ... she should have objected or sought a protective order.”
• similar to situation here, plaintiff’s counsel and co-defendant’s counsel could cross-examine the witness deposed by defendant
• “[A]n oral deposition is not merely a device 24 to uncover and develop information. It also provides a legitimate and efficient means of 25 testing a witness’ knowledge, recollection and veracity.”
• “[A]n oral deposition is not merely a device 14 to uncover and develop information. It also provides a legitimate and efficient means of 15 testing a witness’ knowledge, recollection and veracity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).