Attorney Misconduct in Employment Depositions: Avoiding Rule 30(d)(2) Sanctions While Protecting Client Interests

This CLE webinar will examine FRCP Rule 30's standard for deposition conduct, specifically as it relates to attorney behavior during depositions in employment litigation. The panel will discuss sanctionable behavior under Rule 30(d)(2), providing examples and case law support demonstrating how the courts determine what behavior is sanctionable. The panel will address when parties should move for sanctions, discuss how to defend against motions for sanctions, and offer best practices for defending clients while avoiding deposition misconduct.

Depositions play a key role in employment litigation as the evidence obtained often leads to settlement. Yet, attorney behavior and misconduct during depositions has led to federal courts increasingly imposing sanctions under Rule 30(d)(2).

Rule 30 provides the standard for deposition conduct and Rule 30(c)(2) specifically addresses the manner in which objections should be made. Namely, objections "must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner," and deponents may only be instructed not to answer a deposition question only when necessary to preserve privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

Rule 30(d)(2) allows courts to impose sanctions on "any person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent." Therefore, employment litigators should clearly understand what conduct is considered sanctionable under Rule 30(d)(2) and how they may best protect their clients' interests while avoiding deposition misconduct.

Listen as our expert panel provides an overview of Rule 30 as it pertains to attorney conduct during depositions, with a focus on Rule 30(d)(2), and discusses what the courts consider to be sanctionable attorney conduct and how it may be avoided. The panel will also discuss when to move for sanctions and how to defend against such motions.