Advice to Litigators: Don't Depose Every Witness
At Atkinson-Baker's Depo.com, lawyer Stewart Weltman has some good advice in his article, "Deciding Who To Depose (part one)"--
[D]eposing everyone connected with the facts is not the answer. Why? Because doing so results in numerous meaningless depositions being taken and allows one to avoid focusing, early on, on what their case is about and what they need to do to get it prepared properly.
Not only is this a wasteful practice that unnecessarily increases litigation costs, in many instances it is a bad litigation strategy. In short, one does not need to and should not depose every possible witness in order to avoid being surprised.
Not only is this a wasteful practice that unnecessarily increases litigation costs, in many instances it is a bad litigation strategy. In short, one does not need to and should not depose every possible witness in order to avoid being surprised.
If you shouldn't depose every witness, then which witnesses should you depose? Weltman lays the groundwork for an answer by providing a framework for analyzing each witness in light of your overall trial plan. The second part of Weltman's article will appear in the December issue of Atkinson-Baker's Discovery Update, or see it here at Weltman's Lean and Mean Litigation Blog.
I'm not sure if I understand this advice. Is the advice to just call them at trial? Or just to leave them out of the case if their testimony is duplicative?
Posted by: Josh Myers | November 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM