Q. Sir, take a look--
A. I’m taking a break. Fuck him. You open up the document. You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your fucking money asshole. Isn’t the law wonderful. Better get used to it. You’ll retire when I’m done...
Q. And you have a hard time comprehending. We’re going to adjourn this deposition if this happens again because you are offending every single person.
A. Don’t speak for anybody in here except yourself fuck face.
Q. I’m speaking for myself and I’m speaking for the Court Reporter.
A. If she had a problem with me she would say something. She knows it’s [not] directed toward her. It’s directed to you because you’re a piece of shit and a piece of garbage and I’m the only person in your life that is fucking up your world and I enjoy it. I enjoy it and when you sit there and say I’m perpetrating a fraud I’m just better at the law than you are and you can’t get in the fucking door and it’s pissing you off. Keep trying.
The above [I've only excerpted part of the materials -EV] are only a few examples of Wider’s hostile, uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony. In fact, Wider used the word “fuck” and variants thereof no less than 73 times. To put this in perspective--in this commercial case, where GMAC’s claim is for breach of contract and HTFC’s counterclaim is for tortious interference with contract--the word “contract” and variants thereof were used only 14 times. Such profuse vulgarity had no constructive purpose. The Court is left with the impression that such abusive language was chosen solely to intimidate and demean opposing counsel.
This impression is confirmed by Wider’s repeated references to himself as “the professor” and a “doctor of law,” and repeated expressions of his belief that counsel for GMAC is a
“joke” and a “fucking idiot.” ...
HTFC next argues that Wider’s abusive and obstructive conduct is justified because he was merely reacting to deposing counsel’s provocative and accusatory questions. This argument is simply astonishing. As evidenced in the video recording of the deposition, counsel for GMAC comported himself with courtesy, respect, and professionalism; this was no easy feat, considering Wider’s unrelenting insults, vulgarity, and mockery, most of which were a direct assault on counsel for GMAC....
As evidenced by the portions of the record quoted at length above, throughout the deposition, notwithstanding the severe and repeated nature of Wider’s misconduct, [Wider's lawyer, Joseph Ziccardi,] persistently failed to intercede and correct Wider’s violations of the Federal Rules. Instead, Ziccardi sat idly by as a mere spectator to Wider’s abusive, obstructive, and evasive behavior; and when he did speak, he either incorrectly directed the witness not to answer, dared opposing counsel to file a motion to compel, or even joined in Wider’s
offensive conduct.
Even if a finding of bad faith were required here, the record, viewed as a whole, inexorably leads to the conclusion that Ziccardi’s conduct was undertaken in bad faith. Given the length of the deposition and the severe, repeated, and pervasive nature of Wider’s misconduct, it is clear that Ziccardi’s failure to intervene was not merely negligent, but rather willful. Ziccardi’s bad faith is further revealed by his challenges to opposing counsel to “file whatever motion you want to file” and his snickering at Wider’s abusive conduct.... Because he has failed to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, the Court will impose sanctions upon Ziccardi.
Here's the difficult witness routine done much better.
Misconduct and rude behavior during depositions needs to be taken seriously by the courts. I am very thankful this judge has done so.
Tee hee hee!
A little OT, but what if opposing council was Joe Jamail? Has an opposing council ever been strangled to death during a deposition?
It's not that hard to avoid being sanctioned -- just play nicely with others and do your job.
that was brilliant! Any more details on his trial?
Sure, but they had plenty of chance to make that case to the judge, and conspicuously declined to do so. They evidently did not want that doctor cross-examined.
"The above are only a few examples of Wider’s hostile,uncivil, and vulgar conduct, which persisted throughout the nearly 12 hours of deposition testimony. In fact, Wider used the word 'f**k' and variants thereof no less than 73 times. To put this in perspective--in this commercial case, where GMAC’s claim is for breach of contract and HTFC’s counterclaim is for tortious interference with contract--the word 'contract' and variants thereof were used only 14 times."
Exactly. If that were me, I would have stopped the deposition for my client's own good -- found any non-frivolous excuse to stop that deposition. That's doing a good job of protecting your client, not letting him behave like this.
Would've been easy -- "Counsel, I don't understand what's going on here, but I have to conclude that my client has a medical condition I'm unaware of." The more Wider then swears at his own attorney, the more the attorney can shrug at opposing counsel and say, "See what I mean?"
At worst, then, you get hit for counsel's fees/expenses for attending the depo, and maybe not even that.
I wonder what will happen in front of the Magistrate Judge. I'd pay good money to see if the deponent behaves or not.
In fact, if that were the only problem, the court would probably never have heard about the issue.
I don't know about opposing counsel ever being strangled, but a firm I used to work for had a partner who was arrested for assault for physically attacking opposing counsel (a labor union lawyer) during a deposition. Apparently it improved the firm's business, since their business clients perfectly understood the desire to strangle union lawyers.
Note that though Cohen himself was arrested in a courthouse, he didn't wear his jacket to a courtroom ("when Cohen entered a courtroom in the building," he "removed his jacket and stood with it folded over his arm"). More broadly, the Court held that "Any attempt to support this conviction on the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an appropriately decorous atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen was arrested must fail in the absence of any language in the statute that would have put appellant on notice that certain kinds of otherwise permissible speech or conduct would nevertheless, under California law, not be tolerated in certain places."
Knowing lawyers, whatever amount the lawyer ends up paying he'll just add it to his fee! Court costs?
After opposing council left, court reporter revealed the presence of a tape recorder.
I suspect the court would not smile on his doing so, tho if the client didn't contest paying it, the court might not find out either.
Not even Jack Nicholson could do justice to the part.
Possible, but if that had been the case, counsel would've needed to be on the record to that effect.
It's as if the possibility of sanctions literally did not enter the attorney's mind. A salutary decision that will do wonders for that district.
That's funny, donaldk. I was also trying to think of whom I'd cast for the part.
Joe Pesci (sp?) is the only one who comes to mind.
"NO! FugYOOOO! You fuggin' fuggah!"
For example: I've often wondered why, if someone is accused of murder, that person EVER says anything in a courtroom. It can't possibly help him: the evidence necessary for a conviction comes from elsewhere (witnesses, physical evidence, etc). The only thing testimony can do is get the accused in trouble. So why not just not speak? The worst they could do to you for not speaking is less than being charged with murder.
In other words, if we are honest, the whole court testimony process is just a game in which the two lawyers attempt to score points. The defendant can't possibly score against the prosecutor; the best he can do is end up even. That being the case, why does anyone play?
Sk
That's even more than Spitzer paid!!!
(Rimshot)
The time to go to the judge is when one is blocked from obtaining necessary information one doesn't have.
Yes, the lawyer should have controlled his client. Why $29K?? Seems like a lot.