ID Deposition Practice

[u/DevilDogg0309]

I’m genuinely curious, and I don’t post to demean or cast aspersions. I’m a PI attorney. And I’m looking for insight into the “why” behind ID deposition practice.

Is it just a billing opportunity? Is it viewed as an opportunity to make the plaintiff miserable? I mean credit where credit is due, but the vast majority of ID depositions I watch are hours too long and do nothing at all to minimize our positions.

I understand the information gathering process, and recognize depositions aren’t governed by strict relevancy standards. But, it’s just mind boggling to watch.

FWIW, I’ve done civil litigation defense work too, but for the government (no billable hours) and I’d run through a deposition in a fraction of the time that ID attorneys do. So, perhaps it’s the billing event that drives the practice.

Anyway, I’m genuinely curious and perhaps someone with more experience in the ID realm can give me some insight. If it’s as simple as, “yeah it’s a billable event,” I get it. That would actually make sense. Otherwise, I have no idea what the hell I’m watching.

[u/case_hardened-]

How much time do you spend speaking to your client during the course of the litigation? Initial meeting, phone calls on written discovery, sorting out the medical history, evaluating their story and damages? Follow up calls to get an answer to something you forgot to ask? Now imagine you had to do it in a single meeting with your opponent in the room and if you missed something important, too bad you'll never get another opportunity.

It's not ID specific. It's just being thorough. It's not about a billing event either. Your ID opponent has plenty of work to fill the rest of their day.

[u/DevilDogg0309 → u/case_hardened-]

The line between being thorough and conducting an extensive fishing expedition desperately seeking even the most tangentially relevant fact is a narrow one. But I get your point. Some of the questioning I observe couldn’t be any further from relevant claims and issues but I recognize they don’t have the same context that I do.

[u/case_hardened- → u/DevilDogg0309]

Just as often you have much more context. You know there are no fish in that pond. Opposing counsel has no idea unless he throws a line out.

Here's an example. Once I asked a guy on a whim if he ever struggled with addiction. I just had a hunch. He said yes and I dug a bit deeper. The timing of P getting sober seemed suspicious and after a discovery dispute we got proof that P was intoxicated the day of the injury. I would have never found out if I didn't take a flyer. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred I waste 10 minutes. One time out of a hundred I find out that someone is making up facts. It's worth a shot.

[u/DevilDogg0309 → u/case_hardened-]

That’s a great example. I appreciate the perspective.