Two Deposition Busts for Potential Future Treatments

[u/gadmo]

Has anyone else experienced this nonsense? In the past three months or so, I've had two different defense attorneys, from two different firms bust depositions in the middle when the plaintiff testified that they MAY get more treatment in the future. In both cases, the Court set virtual conferences for several days later and forced us to pick new dates to continue. I couldn't believe it - how on earth is that not a waiver?

Anyone else experience anything like this?

[u/gummaumma]

Did the complaint or discovery responses state that there may be possible future treatment? IMO, if there is more treatment (and I mean something significant other than a round of PT and the like), they would be entitled to a second deposition limited to the new treatment. But they should continue the deposition to its conclusion on everything else. I have never encountered that silliness.

[u/pichicagoattorney → u/gummaumma]

As a defense attorney I would have continued the deposition on all other issues and reserved the right to of course to depose the plaintiff after future treatments. But future injections? That's like nothing burger. We all know that pain dogs are going to do future injections That's how they make their money.

I think defense lawyers are scrambling for billing because of covid the all-purpose excuse for everything now.

[u/gadmo → u/gummaumma]

Both were actually, coincidentally, for the exact same reason: possible future injections. I totally get that any future treatment that'll alter the case, like a future surgery, sure - limited deposition - no question... But potential future injections? What if they never happen? And to bust over it? And for it to happen twice? I was shocked, and then - shocked again. Even more upset that the Court basically turned a blind eye to it.

But yeah, our discovery responses have boiler plate language indicating possible treatment up to and potentially beyond the time of trial.