Talk:Deposition (law)

Untitled
This article shows everything from a science book. IANAL but I'm sure that this does not represent a European, Commonwealth perspective. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the perspective of other legal systems should be added. Unfortunately, my knowledge is limited to US Law.. takethemud 04:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)takethemud

This article makes it seem as if depositions are common in criminal cases. It is my understanding that Florida is one of the only states that allows any discovery before trial in criminal cases. This should be made much more clear.71.183.132.40 00:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange edits by CheshireKatz that are too overly focused on New York practice
CheshireKatz heavily revised this article on July 21, 2009. The primary change I object to is the change of most uses of the word "deposition" to "examination before trial." EBT is a usage unique to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. Like most New York laws, the CPLR is an appallingly incoherent mess due to the perennial battles between the New York Legislature and the Governor (the CPLR's history is full of futile attempts to fix its internal inconsistencies). Deposition is the correct term under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all states that use variants on the FRCP for their local rules, and in California under the Civil Discovery Act.

The reason EBT is problematic is that in many state courts, discovery depositions can still be occurring even after trial begins, usually in cases involving a dying plaintiff where discovery had to be drastically accelerated to accommodate the plaintiff's right to jury trial under the federal and state constitutions. So the American legal community generally refers to depositions (as in, "Counsel, have you completed all depositions that you intend to take in this case?"), which is easier to say and is universally understood. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This article does not represent a commonwealth perspective because we don't really have depositions as such, except for in certain regulatory proceedings. In your standard civil litigation you never get to meet the opposing parties until trial. Examinations for discovery or depositions grew up in north america in the nineteenth century. In Australia and England they never developed. Sometimes interrogatories will be answered in writing, but for obvious reasons they are much less important in the litigation process than a deposition (the lawyers write the answers and the client just checks them). So there is no need to be concerned abot this article being n.american centred - the process is north american. There is a fairly recent movement in Australia to consider examinations for discovery in Australia. In Ontario, interestingly, new rules of civil procedure will come into force 1 Janaury 2010 which significantly limit the time spent by a party on examinations (7 hours, without leave or 2 hours if your case involves less than $100,000). Some lawyers, through incompetence, inexperience or lack of preparation, were taking forever to complete a simple examination.Iamashadowyoucannotseeme (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright I'll take another shot at this. This entire topic has nothing to do with English, Australian and I suspect New Zealand and South African legal practice. Examinations for Discovery are North American in origin. I cannot comment on the civil law systems of Quebec and Europe, but there is nothing more to say about the process for the other countries mentioned. Discovery in those countries is a matter of documents, and occasionally of interrogatories which are written questions and answers. I did a law degree in Austrlaia and the word deposition was never mentioned. The first one I ever saw was in Washington D.C. and I was shocked and amazed that the process could happen without a Judge present. I am also called in England. No mention of the word deposition. This word is north american, the topic is north american, the comment on the top of the page that the article reflects an American viewpoint cannot be refuted, but what else can I do to improve an article that is about a North American thing???!!!!!! Iamashadowyoucannotseeme (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts because of my English
Coolcaesar, if you do not like my English, then please explain to me what am I misspelled? I have no problems if you change my English wording, but I do not like that you completely remove all my edits just because I am not a native English speaker. I think this is a form of discrimination, which is strictly forbidden by Wiki rules. I will complain to Admins if you keep removing my edits with no explanation of factual problem, just because you do not like my spelling. I can speak 4 European languages much better then you, but I never treat foreign-speaking people in my language so bad as you do to me. Innab (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The summary of examination sequence at a deposition makes no sense as applied to discovery depositions
The only times I've seen lawyers for a party serve notice of their own client's deposition or of an allied witness (percipient or expert) are when they think that person is going to die and they need an evidence preservation deposition. In those depos, the lawyers do follow the same sequence as at trial (direct, cross, re-direct).

In discovery depositions, one is usually examining the opposing party or their allied witnesses, so the depositions begin with cross and often that's the only examination conducted. Coolcaesar (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)