A party cannot use its own response to an opposing party’s Requests for Admission in order to defeat a Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court held that "while admissions of a party-opponent are not hearsay, ‘a party may not utilize his own admissions at trial.’" Since evidence that would not be admissible at trial may
A settlement agreement between the plaintiff and a co-defendant was discoverable. Motion to Compel granted.
Today, Judge Tennille issued a very short order in Azalea Garden Board & Care, Inc. v. Vanhoy, granting a defendant’s Motion to Compel production of a settlement agreement entered into between the plaintiff and another defendant.
I’m mentioning the case only because this is an issue that recurs with some frequency. There’s often a non-party which might
Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a deponent can make substantive changes to her deposition transcript during the thirty day review period, so long as the deponent signs "a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given . . . for making them." The deponent will, however, be subject
Bueche v. Noel, April 17, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
How extensively can a deponent change her deposition testimony during her post-deposition review of the transcript? Pretty extensively, it turns out, according to an opinion yesterday from the Business Court.
In Bueche v. Noel, a non-party deponent made fifteen pages of changes and additions to her deposition testimony on errata sheets. The defendant moved to strike the changed and added testimony. Among other things, the defendant argued in its brief that the deponent had used the deposition as a "take home exam" to write answers on which its counsel had no opportunity to cross-examine her. (Links to the briefs are at the bottom of this post)
The federal courts are split on the scope of a deponent’s right to correct or add to her deposition answers, as demonstrated by the parties’ briefs. There was no North Carolina appellate court precedent on the issue.
The Court looked to Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes changes "in form or substance" to the deposition testimony, so long as the deponent signs "a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given . . . for making them." The Court held that a deponent has the freedom to make any type of correction, whether as to form or substance, so the changes and additions were allowed.
The new testimony didn’t replace the previous testimony, however. The Court held that the original answers would remain part of the record and could be used for impeachment or any other relevant purpose. The Court also permitted the defendant to reopen the deposition on the limited subjects of the corrections made on the errata sheet, the reasons for those changes, and any reasonable follow-up questions.
The Court also ruled on another first impression issue of North Carolina deposition procedure:Continue Reading Deponent Can Materially Change Deposition Testimony During The Reading And Signing Process
The Court entered a series of discovery rulings in this case.
In a July 2007 ruling, the Court struck a Motion to Compel because the moving party had not included a certificate of compliance with Business Court Rule 18.6(a). The Court found an attachment including the correspondence between the parties over discovery matters to
A party must comply with Business Court Rule 15.8 (word limitation for briefs) and 18.6 (requiring certification prior as to resolution efforts before filing a motion to compel) even when pursuing discovery from a non-party.
Plaintiff sought Defendant’s psychiatric records in discovery to determine whether she had ever been treated for bipolar disorder. The Court determined that the Defendant had not met her burden of establishing that the information sought was subject to the Psychologist-Patient privilege, and ordered the records to be produced.
Harco Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Grant Thornton LLP, 2008 NCBC 5 (N.C. Super. Ct. March 4, 2008)(Tennille)
Plaintiff sent discovery regarding the Defendant accounting firm’s insurance coverage. In addition to obtaining information on the face amount of the policy, plaintiff also sought information on the other claims made under the policy and the amount of coverage
Plaintiff sought information via a discovery motion not only as to the face amount of defendant’s insurance policies, but also the amount of coverage remaining. The Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to this information, because "when it comes time to negotiate, the amount of liability coverage available to a defendant should be disclosed to