A judge recently declared a deposition a "train wreck” in the trial of MAG Aerospace Industries Inc. v. B/E Aerospace Inc.
after the defendant's attorney repeatedly objected to the opposing counsel's questions, calling them too vague. As a result, the judge ordered B/E to reimburse MAG for the cost of the deposition, to produce a witness who is more willing to testify, and to refrain from objecting that questions by MAG are too vague in the next deposition.
"I like decisions like this because I think they tend to serve as a deterrent to this type of conduct," Mr. Romero said. "People are going to read this and realize that judges are not going to put up with their gamesmanship in deposition."
Mr. Romero also pointed out the importance of quickly determining the legitimacy of an objection in order to avoid frustrating the judge with unnecessary interruptions.
"This decision makes clear that you've got to determine on the spot, in that split second, whether there is a legitimate basis for the objection, and if there's not, don't do it," Mr. Romero told the publication. "If there are too many illegitimate objections being lodged, you're liable to be called out by the judge."
To read the entire article (subscription required), CLICK HERE
Mr. Romero represents both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts in complex commercial litigation, bad–faith insurance claims, qui tam and whistleblower actions, and construction litigation. He is rated "AV Preeminent" by Martindale–Hubbell Peer Review Ratings and was recently named a Super Lawyer–Rising Star by Thomson Reuters, an honor bestowed on less than 2.5% of Texas lawyers. Mr. Romero received his B.S., cum laude
, from Stephen F. Austin State University and his J.D., cum laude
, from Northwestern University School of Law. After law school, he clerked for both the Texas Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.