Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Times have changed. Depositions, used at trial for impeachment purposes, are now more than just dry words on a page. Increasingly, they are on videotape and the courts are happy about that. Weseloh-Hurtig v. Hepker, 152 F.R.D. 198, 201 (D. Kan. 1993). Should lawyers feel the same way? Well, it depends on whether you are the attorney taking the deposition or if you are the one whose client's deposition is being captured on video. It can be a blessing or it can be the death knell for your case. Let's look at this developing trend.
Until 1993 there was no right to a video deposition in the Federal Courts. Prior to the 1993 amendments to Fed. R. Civ P. 30, any party wishing to take a video deposition had to do it either by consent of the parties or by order of the court. Now the rule states: “2) The party taking the deposition shall state in the notice the method by which the testimony shall be recorded. Unless the court orders otherwise, it may be recorded by sound, sound-and-visual, or stenographic means, and the party taking the deposition shall bear the cost of the recording. Any party may arrange for a transcription to be made from the recording of a deposition taken by nonstenographic means.” The majority of the states have followed suit in mirroring the Federal Rule.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.