 |
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
Lordy, lordy, lordy. How the hell do I explain this one?
OK, you know Controller #18 at my parents company, the one who has been acting as hatchet man in re: to me vs. my parents? At the time the strength of my case really depended upon whether #18 could be counted on to give accurate and honest testimony as to what happened August 2002. It really happened between the two of us, with my parents cowering somewhere off site.
Regardless, this last September he turned in his resignation and left the company. The official line was that he quit over money, but that didn't ring true with me... nobody ever quits my parents company because of mere money. I gave thought to tracking him down but never got around to it because I'm too busy righting the ship here at Takeover Inc to worry about the past.
However, he gave me a call today. A friendly call, one that started and ended pleasantly.
... #18 is suing my parents. For what reasons I'll find out Friday, but he is suing my parents. Or my parents company. Or both.
And I am being deposed as a character witness, especially in relation to the as-yet unsettled issue between me and my parents, and another issue which I'm kind of surprised that he's asking about (some HR issue involving a subordinate of mine who was fired after I left).
I've contacted my lawyer already, but God... I don't know how I feel about this. However, a lot of people are overjoyed and asking if they can supply character testimony against my parents as well. This trial, if it ever gets to trial, would be of Seinfeld-esque proportions, a queue of witnesses from years past just waiting their one chance to say, for the record, how much they can't stand my stepmother.
I'll see how serious he is, but the fact that he allowed that he is going to depose current employees speaks of a willingness to play hardball.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Most likely a settlement tactic. I dunno how thangs work in your civil courts there, but in state and Federal civil lit I've been involved in, nobody reads all those friggin depositions, except the firm's staff lawyers assigned to run up the bill.
What it does do is this: Tell the other side "We're gonna bleed your asses dry financially."
"We're gonna find everyone with an axe to grind and make a public spectacle of you, so you might want to save yourself and your reputation some trouble and write us a bigger check now."
Good lawyers don't usually do the shotgun deposition approach, as it's expensive as hell, and often counterproductive. Bad lawyers do it often, because they don't know how to simplify a case for trial (remember that half of any jury has a two-digit IQ  and that you need a majority, so your case can get screwed on account of the two-digit half of the jury), or they have a weak case and they want to rely on the intimidation/cost factor to jack a settlement.
Shotgun depositions can also lead to law and motion fights on the permissible scope and extent of discovery - I've been on the successful side both ways, as a corporate defendant wanting to bully and intimidate lying plaintiff witnesses, and as a corporate defendant limiting a plaintiff's attempt to depose every employee as a tactic to interfere with the business operation without regard to any reasonable expectation that the employees would have any relevant knowledge.
Has he had a deposition subpoena served on you yet, or have you agreed to a date? If not, and you want to keep the door open for yourself, you could always inform him, counsel to counsel that (a) you're really very busy with a number of critical issues, and your cheerful cooperation is a bit dependent on some professional courtesy in the matter of scheduling; (b) since you also may be a potential litigant and you were a former managing employee, you'll be represented by counsel at this deposition, so convenient scheduling will be a matter of attorney to attorney professional courtesy, not courtesy to a one-off disposable witness (this last part is implied once you get to the represented by counsel part - it's never said, but it's understood); and finally, (c) since you are a potential litigant there's some (make up an excuse) issue in which you need Controller #18's signature on a sworn declaration related to the issues that concern you (JohnT). You can then work on getting the signature to the declaration before your deposition date, so you give Controller #18 and his lawyer some incentive to play ball with you before you play ball with them. Because once they ball you, they don't need you any more. 
Or, your being cagey like this will convince them not to try wasting your time. The scope of admissible discovery is much broader than the scope of admissible evidence (discovery must be relevant to the subject matter of the allegations in the litigation, evidence must be relevant to the allegations themselves), so most of this type of shotgun deposition crap never makes it to trial, because the fact that lots of people might think mom-in-law is a nasty ***** doesn't really bear on the specifics of the causes of action.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Most likely a settlement tactic...
...because the fact that lots of people might think mom-in-law is a nasty ***** doesn't really bear on the specifics of the causes of action. |
Good advice, especially point C - a little quid pro quo would be needed on my part. Thanks!
Thinking about the aforementioned HR case, I don't think that this is a shotgun deposition as myself and the other person named as being deposition-worthy both have experience in HR matters.
I'm WAG-ing that in the HR case above, #18 was ordered to do something that is questionable at best, and now it's come back to bite him (an employee who loved to threaten lawsuits was fired by #18 after a long, rancorous meeting. Or so I've heard.  ) If that is the case, he is likely looking for testimony as to how my stepmother handles HR (a friggin' nightmare for all involved) and the people "in charge" of it. My story is probably just an added bonus, but you're right: If I'm going to vouch for him, he'll have to vouch for me. In writing.
Personally, I have no problem relating my side of the story in an official manner even if it benefits #18 more than I. The fact is, my siblings are half convinced (or more) that I'm blowing this out of proportion or that my parents have their reasons for doing this and that is something that I need to dispel. Having the guy who relayed to me my parents intention to violate the contract verify that they did, indeed, steal from me will go a long way in restoring my credibility among my siblings. Or not. But at least I tried.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-11-2003 01:55
|