In Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, 299 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Iowa 2014), U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett addressed “the impropriety of unspecified ‘form’ objections, witness coaching, and excessive interruptions” during depositions. The court acknowledged a split of authority concerning whether attorneys were permitted or required to state the basis for their “form” objections. However, it found that witness coaching and excessive interruptions of depositions were clearly prohibited and that both constituted a basis for imposing sanctions against defendant’s counsel, a partner at Jones Day. Although the Security National Bank opinion has gained attention due to the creative nature of the sanction imposed, it is also a good primer on the appropriate manner in which to defend a deposition.
Security National Bank was a products liability case in which the plaintiff, acting as conservator for the minor child J.M.K., alleged that defendant Abbott Laboratories’ baby formula contained dangerous bacteria which caused J.M.K. to suffer permanent brain damage. In ruling on the admissibility of deposition testimony that the parties intended to use at trial, the court observed that the deposition transcripts were “littered” with “meritless objections” by defendant’s counsel. Accordingly, after a jury ruled in the defendant’s favor, the court filed a sua sponte order to show cause as to why it should not sanction defendant’s counsel for the “serious pattern of obstructive conduct” that she exhibited during depositions. Specifically, the court cited her excessive use of “form” objections; her “numerous attempts to coach witnesses”; and her “ubiquitous interruptions and attempts to clarify questions posed by opposing counsel.”
