Podcasts about depositions

Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.

In a wild Friday night ride, a revolving crew of Badlands hosts breaks down the newly released Biden interview tapes and spirals into the absurdity of the President's rambling tales of Mongolian horse races, sumo wrestlers, and archery contests. The crew debates whether Biden's dementia has led him to accidentally confess to crimes, while floating theories about Beau Biden's death and the deeper implications of Biden's obsession with his son during document-related questioning. The show doesn't stop there, James O'Keefe's latest “scoops” from Epstein's island come under fire for being more fluff than fact, while drone footage from Rusty Shackelford reignites speculation about tunnels, temples, and coverups. A spirited debate on Biden body doubles, SCOTUS rulings on immigration, and Matt Walsh's controversial comments keeps the energy high. Throw in some AI-generated Stephen Hawking superhero art, accusations of landline-based seduction, and the usual raucous banter, and you've got another classic Liberty Den episode: unpredictable, unfiltered, and unapologetically Badlands.

Join Academy Past President and host of The Mentor Esq. podcast, Andrew J. Smiley, Esq., for the second CLE in his series: Federal Court Confidence. In this episode, Andrew focuses on preparing for and conducting effective depositions in federal court personal injury cases — covering procedural differences, strategic insight, and practical tips from decades of experience. Earn 1 Professional Practice Credit with The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers. Masters Program Eligible - Negligence To view the materials for this episode, click here. To enter the code for CLE credit, click here. Contact Andrew Smiley at Andrew@thementoresq.com For more in-depth discussions and other topics such as these, please listen to the podcast, The Mentor Esq., which is available on all major podcast platforms.

Donna Adelson's trial could be delayed after an avalanche of new evidence hits defense lawyers. Charlie and Wendi Adelson's canceled depositions add new twists to an already tangled case. #STSNation, Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the very #BestGuests in all of #TrueCrime on trending criminal cases. The case that launched it all — the murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel — is entering another chaotic phase. With a new hearing set for Wednesday, Donna Adelson's defense is reeling from an alleged discovery dump of 80,000 emails and digital files. Meanwhile, Charlie Adelson's and Wendi Adelson's depositions have reportedly been canceled, and Donna's team has hired their own digital forensic expert to wade through the mountain of evidence. Will this force a delay in Donna Adelson's highly anticipated trial? Will the defense use the discovery chaos to press for a continuance? And what does it mean for the overall strategy as the clock ticks? #BestGuests: • Professor Jo Potuto, Professor Emerita, University of Nebraska Law School • R. Timothy Jansen, famed Tallahassee criminal defense attorney•Dave Aronberg, former Florida State Attorney for Palm Beach County and current defense attorney

In this episode we learn that mediation didn't resolve the parties differences. We find out that Brandon has avoided being deposed. Raees Mohamed may soon be replaced as Brandon Rafi's lead counsel on the bomb threat case. Rafi employees are being supplemented to the lawsuit to question their involvement with Mr. Rafi and RLG. 

Have Blake Lively & Taylor Swift made amends? Is this a sign a settlement is coming?! A source reveals the latest on their friendship. Plus, Prince Harry is not happy with Meghan Markle using their kids to promote her new brand As Ever. Plus, let's talk Kenya Moore's exit from RHOA, Jed Wallace's case against Blake Lively, and The White Lotus Season 3 finale.    Spike Detox your body! Use code NOFILTER for 15% Off + Free Shipping on every order. www.twc.health/nofilter    Upgrade how you see the world and how the world sees you. Go to www.paireyewear.com and use code NOFILTER for 15% off your first pair.   Shop New "Justice for Justin" and "Mommy Sleuth" Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio    Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb    Listen to The Pop Report: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pop-report/id1746150111    Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi    Join the Zack Pack Community to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3Zs51YaK-xw2U5ypi5eqg/join    Couldn't get enough? Follow @justplainzack or @nofilterwithzack

Delligatti v. United States, No. 23-825 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2025)crime of violence; force through omission; New York attempted murder; Castleman; Stokeling; meaning of “use”; limits of Borden; bodily injury; “ordinary meaning”   Ayala Chapa v. Bondi, No. 21-60039 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025)temporary appellate IJs; temporary Board member; Santos Zacaria; INA §  103(g)(1); Attorney General authority; ultra vires argument  Yocom, et al. v. USCIS, et al., No. 22-0839 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2025)discovery to challenge I-130 denial; INA § 204(c); deposition of ex-wife; deposition of USCIS; no requirement to submit sworn statement; Munoz; coercive behavior; due process violationSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books:https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell provide updates on the case of Chris Skinner's suspicious death, Buster Murdaugh's defamation case, Johnnie James' suspicious/not suspicious death and the capital murder charge against Lee Gilley for the death of his pregnant wife Christa Bauer Gilley. [3:37] Hear the latest developments in the tragic and suspicious 2021 drowning death of Chris Skinner, the quadriplegic husband of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, “Pastor” John-Paul Miller's girlfriend, Suzi. In 2024 — after watching video footage of Skinner's final moments and seeing that it didn't seem like his drowning was an “accident” — Mandy and Liz called on the Myrtle Beach Coroner's Office to reopen its investigation into Skinner's death.  This past week, that second investigation was finally announced publicly.  [18:21] Also on the episode, Buster Murdaugh calls on a federal judge to reconsider his order to split Murdaugh's defamation case against Netflix, Warner Brothers and other defendants. Buster's argument? He'll be presenting evidence to the court proving that he didn't kill Stephen Smith — a gay teenager left for dead on a Hampton County road — including DEPOSITIONS of people who have “personal knowledge” of the events that led to Stephen's death in July 2015. Will Buster end up the hero in bringing justice to the Stephen Smith case?  [33:35] Plus, an update on men's rights fan Lee Gilley, who is accused of killing his wife and unborn baby in Houston, Texas, and lying about it. Why is it taking the state so long to indict him and should we be concerned?  [50:42] Finally, a correction in the Jane Doe No. 1 case against JP Miller and an appeal for information. Let's dive in...

In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a new ruling on a little-known but powerful tool: the use of depositions as affidavits. As Garrity discusses, a deposition does not need to meet the requirements of trial-oriented Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 (which requires a showing that the party against whom the deposition is offered had notice and a chance to examine the deposition) when it is offered in proceedings that allow testimony by affidavit, such as at summary judgment.SHOW NOTESSurety v. Co. v. Dwight A. Herald, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-GNS-HBB, 2025 WL 627523 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025) (deposition/examination under oath of witness taken in underlying state-court personal injury could be used in federal declaratory judgment actions at summary judgment time, as deposition meets form of affidavit)Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, et al., 960 F. 2d 765 (8th Cir. 1992) (deposition need not be admissible at trial to be properly considered in opposition to motions for summary judgment; deposition inadmissible at trial because one of the defendants did not receive proper notice and did not attend the deposition was properly used to create issues of fact justifying denial of summary judgment)Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 ... plainly allows consideration of “affidavits” and we find nothing which requires that term to be construed within the limitations of Rule 32(a).”).First Gaston Bank of North Carolina v. City of Hickory, 691 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. N.C. 2010) (citing cases rejecting proposition that FRCP 32 limits use of depositions in proceedings where evidence in affidavit form is admissible; pointing out that to the extent a party objects that they didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose deposition from some other cases being offered, “the same objection can frequently be made as to affidavits filed in connection with motions for summary judgment”)Tingey v. Radionics, 193 F. App'x 747, 765–66 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment where trial court, relying on FRCP 32, excluded from consideration in opposition to summary judgment a deposition that plaintiff took of physician in separate state proceeding, where defendant was not party to that proceeding and had not been given notice of deposition; depositions can be used as affidavits in proceedings where affidavits are admissible; to illustrate, “[p]arties may file affidavits in support of summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The “remedy” for this non-confronted affidavit testimony is to file an opposing affidavit, not to complain that one was not present and permitted to cross-examine when the affidavit was signed. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has permitted a party to introduce deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes against a party who was not present at the deposition, by construing the deposition as an affidavit. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966–67 (9th Cir.1981)”)Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, 291 F.3d 738, 751 (11th Cir. 2002) (without analyzing scope and extent of application of FRCP 32, court broadly said that “Depositions are generally admissible provided that the party against whom they are admitted was present, represented, or reasonably noticed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a), and are specifically allowed in consideration of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A deposition taken in a different proceeding is admissible if the party against whom it is offered was provided with an opportunity to examine the deponent. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1).”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (explicitly allowing citation to depositions for or against summary judgment)8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2142 (1970))) (as are at least as good as affidavits and should be usable whenever an affidavit would be permissible, even where the conditions or requirements for use at trial under rule 32 are not met) 

The days of Musk and Trump playing fast and lose with the facts of what DOGE is and what it is doing may be coming to an end, as a federal judge has had enough with the “opaque” structure of DOGE and has ordered that 4 DOGE employees sit for depositions under oath to explain to the Court what it does and who is in charge at each agency. Michael Popok explains that this order won't just help the labor union who brought this case but will be used by lawyers and judges in the other more than a dozen DOGE related cases to lock the Trump Administration to stop the lies. Save your smile and your bank account with Remi! Get up to 50% off your custom-fit mouth guard at https://ShopRemi.com/LEGALAF today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marty Dusek joins Shannon Salmon-Haas and host Todd Marquardt talk about litigation on this edition of Talk Law Radio! Attorney Todd Marquardt brings you insightful topics every Saturday morning, but he's not stopping there! Join Todd every Sunday afternoon at 4:30pm for a special bonus segment! He addresses trending and specific topics in more detail with a professional perspective. The mission of Talk Law Radio is to help you discover your legal issue blind spots by listening to me talk about the law on the radio. The state bar of Texas is the state agency that governs attorney law licenses. The State Bar wants attorneys to inform the public about the law but does not want us to attempt to solve your individual legal problems upon the basis of general information. Instead, contact an attorney like Todd A. Marquardt at Marquardt Law Firm, P.C. to discuss your specific facts and circumstances of your unique situation. Leave a legacy that makes a positive impact on people's lives Chat online at MarquardtLawFirm.com to schedule an appointment to help you create a legally enforceable last will, living trust, or tax protected inheritance plan. Tell a friend what this show is about discovering hidden legal issue blind spots like in business and estates and elder law. Today's hidden legal issue blind spot is "Citizenship." Subscribe to the Talk Law Radio YouTube channel to watch the show in four separate segments. Like & Subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/@talklawradio3421 Listen here! www.TalkLawRadio.com Work with Todd! https://marquardtlawfirm.com/ Join attorney Todd Marquardt every week for exciting law talk on Talk Law Radio! Follow Shannon Salmon-Haas! Instagram: @shannonrobertasanantonio Tik Tok: @shannonrobertasa Facebook: @Shannon Roberta San AntonioSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Art of Divorce Depositions: Strategy, Preparation, and SuccessIn this episode of the season-long "Your Divorce Case" series, Seth and Pete tackle one of the most crucial elements of divorce proceedings: depositions. As Seth notes, depositions are where cases can be won or lost, making this episode essential listening for anyone facing divorce proceedings.The discussion reveals the strategic chess game that unfolds during depositions, from how attorneys prepare their clients to the careful dance of questions and answers. Seth shares insights from his years of experience, explaining why depositions are his favorite part of legal proceedings and how proper preparation can make all the difference. The episode covers everything from the basic structure of a deposition to advanced techniques for handling difficult questions, all while emphasizing the importance of authenticity and honesty in your responses.Questions we answer in this episode:What rules should I follow when answering deposition questions?How do attorney objections work during a deposition?What rights do I have if questioning becomes hostile?Key Takeaways:Listen carefully and only answer exactly what's askedTake your time reviewing documentsStay authentic - don't try to outsmart the processThis episode provides invaluable insights for anyone facing a deposition, offering both practical guidance and strategic understanding. Seth's enthusiasm for the deposition process, combined with real-world examples, makes complex legal concepts accessible and actionable for listeners.Links & NotesTune in to our Deposition Prep episode!Schedule a consult with SethGot a question you want to ask on the show? Click here! (00:00) - Welcome to How to Split a Toaster (00:26) - Depositions (00:56) - What Is a Deposition? (02:41) - An Art, Not a Science (03:36) - Who Is Present? (04:02) - Questions and Answers and Objections (07:34) - Recorded vs. Live (09:10) - Strategy (13:39) - What You Can't Do (16:05) - Attorney Client Privilege (18:11) - Preparing the Client (20:33) - It's an Interview, Not a Conversation (23:00) - How Much Coaching Works (25:11) - Recording Types (27:27) - Understand the Theme of Your Case (30:33) - Ethical Considerations (32:44) - Take Your Time (35:33) - Making Mistakes (36:53) - Wrap Up

In this episode, Jim Garrity talks about a tactic of some examining lawyers that should, but often doesn't, draw objections that their questions are “argumentative.” So, what is an improper, argumentative question or examination? Here, we're not talking about the questioner's tone or demeanor, i.e., arguing in the classic sense of yelling and bickering with the deponent. We're talking about questions where lawyers aren't really asking a question designed to elicit facts but are instead injecting their own commentary or viewpoint, or injecting insults, taunts, wisecracks, or similar language. "Argumentative" objections are objections to the form, and must be timely made or are waived.SHOW NOTESPeople v. Pawar, No. G037097, 2007 WL 477949, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2007) (“[W]ere they lying” queries are improper if they are merely argumentative. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 381, 384.) In Chatman, the prosecutor asked the defendant how the safe at a store was opened. (Id. at p. 379.) The defendant replied “he could not say; he never touched the safe,” eliciting the prosecutor's query, “ ‘Well, is the safe lying about you?' “ (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held the question of whether an inanimate object was “lying” was argumentative , defining argumentative inquiry as “speech to the jury masquerading as a question” which “does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Id. at p. 384.))Faile v. Zarich, No. HHDX04CV5015994S, 2008 WL 2967045, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 10, 2008) (Webster's. . . in the closest relevant definition, defines “argumentative” as “consisting of or characterized by argument: containing a process of reasoning: controversial”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) (Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice Series: Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence § 611 cmt. 12 (2012); see United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir.N.Y.2005) (defining argumentative as “summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence”); accord Eddlemon v. State, 591 S.W.2d 847, 851 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (trial court did not abuse discretion in finding the question, “You don't believe your own offense report?” argumentative). In other words, an argumentative objection concerns whether counsel is attempting to “argue” the case, not whether the counsel is “arguing” with the witness”)United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (“During the presentation of evidence one of the most commonly sustained objections is that a particular question is argumentative, Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) advisory committee's note to Subdivision (a) to 1972 Proposed Rules, and any summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence are improper and subject as a routine matter to being stricken, Mauet & Wolfson, supra, at 30”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) ("Many common law objections—including the objection of “argumentative”—are incorporated in the Texas Rules of Evidence. The common law argumentative objection is now governed by Tex.R. Evid. 611 which concerns the mode of interrogation and presentation. The argumentative objection is an objection commonly used, but not commonly understood. Pardee argues the objection should have been sustained because the State was “arguing” with the defendant. Argumentative, though, does not concern counsel's demeanor or tone. Professors Wellborn, Goode, and Sharlot explain the argumentative objection as follows: Counsel may not, in the guise of asking a question, make a jury argument or attempt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the evidence. In addition, questions that ask a witness to testify as to his own credibility are improper.")People v. Chatman, 38 Cal. 4th 344, 384, 133 P.3d 534, 563 (2006) The prosecutor's question about whether the safe was “lying” requires a different analysis. The question was argumentative. An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. The prosecutor's question whether “the safe [was] lying” is an example. An inanimate object cannot “lie.” Professor Wigmore has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (5 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne rev. ed.1974) § 1367, p. 32.) The engine should be allowed to run, but it cannot be allowed to run amok. An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all. Defendant had already explained he had no explanation for the safe being open. Asking whether the safe was “lying” could add nothing to this testimony”)People v. Imbach, No. E040190, 2008 WL 510482, at *7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) ("The prosecutor asked, “You found that to be inappropriate but not your other son's addiction to child pornography?” When defendant objected that the question was argumentative, the trial court overruled that objection. Defendant asserted the second “argumentative” objection when defendant's mother said she did not know how to answer that question and the prosecutor asked, “Is that because you didn't want to know?” The trial court sustained the defendant's objection to this second question. Both questions are argumentative, because they both are speeches by the prosecutor masquerading as questions. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 384.) The trial court should have sustained both objections. However, we cannot say that by asking those two questions the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.")People v. Peoples, 62 Cal. 4th 718, 793–94, 365 P.3d 230, 288 (2016) (“Defendant observes that the prosecutor asked numerous argumentative questions when cross-examining defense witnesses. To list a few examples, the prosecutor asked defense expert Dr. Lisak, “how many hours are you into them for?” He said to defense expert Dr. Buchsbaum, “Let's quit guessing for awhile and look at the facts.” He said to defense expert Dr. Wu, “It's a pain in the butt to get these test scores.” And he asked prosecution expert Dr. Mayberg, “Did you have a heart attack last night when you looked at the raw data?”)People v. Burns, No. D081051, 2024 WL 2144151, at *15–17 (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2024), review denied (July 17, 2024) (excessive repetition of a question simply to make a point can cross line into improper argument”; “Burns makes a strong argument that the prosecutor's repetitive questioning regarding the drunk tank incident became argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.) “An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Ibid.) Instead, it may be aimed at agitating or belittling the witness (People v. Lund (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1148), or designed to engage the witness in an argument (People v. Johnson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1236)”)People v. Mazen, No. B300193, 2021 WL 164356, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021) The court overruled defendant's argumentative objection to the following question: “Would [accidentally placing the car in neutral] been important information to tell [Morales]?” The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection. The question sought to elicit relevant testimony regarding defendant's theory that Mario was hit by accident (CALCRIM No. 510). (See People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384 [“[a]n argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question” and does not seek to elicit relevant testimony].)”People v. Singh, No. H042511, 2018 WL 1046260, at *28 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2018) (“Each question anticipated an answer and was answerable; none was “a speech to the jury masquerading as a question”)People v. Basler, No. D068047, 2015 WL 9437926, at *23 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015) ("Fung appears to identify three categories of objectionable questioning during his cross-examination by the prosecutor. The first category involves apparent sarcasm by the prosecutor. For example, after Fung provided additional details about his fight with another inmate while incarcerated, the prosecutor said, “Okay. You left that part out a couple of minutes ago; right?” Referencing the same fight, the prosecutor made light of Fung's claim of self-defense: “Did you have to defend yourself against him, too?” As another example, when Fung was discussing the extent of his injuries following the fight, the prosecutor said, “So, that's about how badly you were hurt? It looked like something you get by falling off a skateboard?” The court sustained objections to each of these questions, and a number of others, as argumentative." Also from Basler: "As we have noted, Fung contends the first two categories of questions were impermissibly argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even want an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.... An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (People v. Chatman (2006)”)People v. Nanez, No. F064574, 2014 WL 1928307, at *14–15 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2014) (citing examples of argumentative examination by prosecutor including (a) the prosecutor's remark “Convenient” when a witness said they did not remember a particular fact, and (b) when prosecutor commented on witnesses testimony by saying “So that's the lie you're going with?”, and (c) when prosecutor asked witness “You wouldn't tell us if you're lying, of course, right?” and when witness said he would, prosecutor replied “There's another lie,” causing court to strike prosecutor's comment from the record)People v. Strebe, No. D057947, 2011 WL 2555653, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2011) (trial courses sustained objection to question as argumentative where prosecutor asked witness “Do you remember anything about that evening that might be detrimental to your case?” In essence arguing to jury that witness was lying and only selectively remembered favorable facts)People v. Higgins, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 873–74 (Ct. App. 2011), as modified (Jan. 21, 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 4, 2011) (guilty verdict reversed in part due to argumentative questions; among other jabs; in case where defendant explained his conduct as motived by depression due to death of his daughter's friend, prosecutor asked, “You'd agree with me that it's pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17–year–old kid as an excuse in this trial, wouldn't you? Would you agree with me? Is that the legacy that you want [the dead teen] to have?”; other examples of prosecutor's argumentative questions included “Oh, the door was unlocked,” and “Isn't that convenient that all of a sudden, right after you've committed the crimes, that that's when you come to?”; further held, “The rule is well established that the prosecuting attorney may not interrogate witnesses solely ‘for the purpose of getting before the jury the facts inferred therein, together with the insinuations and suggestions they inevitably contained, rather than for the answers”)People v. Dixon, No. D047342, 2007 WL 2745207, at *10 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2007)  Dixon asked Hernandez who had taken the photographs near the time of the injury. Hernandez testified that the audio-visual person at his school had taken photographs of his injury. Dixon then asked, “Is it computer enhancement? Those could be computer enhanced-.” The prosecutor interrupted, “That's argumentative.” The court sustained the prosecutor's objection")United States v. Browne, No. SACR 16-00139-CJC, 2017 WL 1496912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (For each witness, the Court did not end Defense counsel's cross-examination until it became excessively cumulative and argumentative, at which time the Court was well within its authority to restrain the questioning pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a).”)Beving v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 3:18-CV-00040, 2020 WL 6051598, at *12 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 8, 2020) (Defendant may object to prejudicial or argumentative references to counsel at trial as permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. Rs. Evid. 403, 611(a)(3).)FRE 403: Argumentative questions may be viewed as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or wasting time.FRE 611(a)(3), Witnesses and Presenting Evidence ((a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.FRCP 30, Depositions, (d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit. (3) Motion to Terminate or Limit, (A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. 

Scott Schara gives an update on his ongoing lawsuit of medical malpractice and the wrongful death of his daughter Grace and shares some shocking laws that are in effect throughout the U.S. Our Amazing Grace: https://ouramazinggrace.net/home www.worldviewmatters.tv © FreedomProject 2025

Scott Schara gives an update on his ongoing lawsuit of medical malpractice and the wrongful death of his daughter Grace and shares some shocking laws that are in effect throughout the U.S.Our Amazing Grace: https://ouramazinggrace.net/homewww.worldviewmatters.tv© FreedomProject 2025

Ellen Greenberg May Finally Get Justice With New Depositions & Discovery-2024 Year in Review This is the " The Year in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this year's most compelling headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that have dominated the news.    This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.    Throughout the past year, we've followed and dissected cases such as P. Diddy, Karen Read, Scott Peterson, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrand, the Delphi Murders, Kouri Richins, Bryan Kohberger, Rex Heuermann, Alex Murdaugh, Chad and Lori Daybell, and the Adelson family. Each episode navigates through these stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.    Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "The Year in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

This is the " The Year in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this year's most compelling headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that have dominated the news.    This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.    Throughout the past year, we've followed and dissected cases such as P. Diddy, Karen Read, Scott Peterson, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrand, the Delphi Murders, Kouri Richins, Bryan Kohberger, Rex Heuermann, Alex Murdaugh, Chad and Lori Daybell, and the Adelson family. Each episode navigates through these stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.    Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "The Year in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

This is the " The Year in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this year's most compelling headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that have dominated the news.    This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.    Throughout the past year, we've followed and dissected cases such as P. Diddy, Karen Read, Scott Peterson, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrand, the Delphi Murders, Kouri Richins, Bryan Kohberger, Rex Heuermann, Alex Murdaugh, Chad and Lori Daybell, and the Adelson family. Each episode navigates through these stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.    Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "The Year in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

This week we cover “Opening, Focus Groups, and Depositions” with J.David Stradley.Contact J. David Stradley at:phone: (919) 424-9400 • fax: (919) 845-9745email: stradley@whiteandstradley.com3105 Charles B. Root WyndRaleigh, NC 27612To learn more about the Keenan Case Presentation System, click on this link:https://www.keenancps.com/And on your Apple device you can download the KCPS App for FREE:https://apps.apple.com/us/app/case-presentation-system/id1541913706Want to listen to more episodes? Or did you miss out on last week's episode? We're now live on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. You can also find us on the Keenan Trial Institute website at https://keenantrialinstitute.com/podcast/

The Unrelenting Questions: The Death of Ellen Greenberg The snowstorm outside was relentless, blanketing Philadelphia in a quiet, suffocating stillness. It was January 26, 2011—the kind of day where the world seems to pause, leaving everyone confined to their warm apartments, sipping coffee, watching the flakes tumble. But for Ellen Greenberg, the quiet of her kitchen hid something darker, something that would ignite over a decade of questions, heartbreak, and accusations. Twenty Wounds and a Locked Door Twenty stab wounds. A ten-inch knife still buried in her chest. And a locked door that her fiancé Samuel Goldberg claimed he had to break down. When Goldberg's call came through to 911 that day, his voice was frantic. He'd been at the gym, he told police. He'd forgotten his keys, locked himself out, and after she didn't answer his increasingly desperate knocks, he forced his way in. What he found, he insisted, shattered him: Ellen lying on the kitchen floor, her body surrounded by blood. He claimed he tried CPR, helpless as his fiancée slipped further beyond reach. From the beginning, the scene defied logic. Ellen Greenberg, 27, a beloved teacher, had 20 stab wounds—ten to the back of her head and neck, ten more to her chest, abdomen, and stomach. Yet, almost inexplicably, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office initially called her death a homicide. Then, after a meeting with police and prosecutors, that ruling was quietly changed to suicide. A Family's Relentless Fight For years, Ellen's death has been a study in contradictions. The Greenberg family's quiet suburban lives were upended as they fought against a system that seemed more determined to close the case than solve it. Ellen's parents, Joshua and Sandee, poured their grief into action. They hired forensic experts, pathologists, and lawyers. They combed through every detail. And still, all these years later, their daughter's death certificate reads: Suicide. But now, 13 years later, there's a new twist. Sam Goldberg, the fiancé who found her, has broken his silence, offering his first public comments on a case that has followed him like a shadow. In a statement to CNN, Goldberg remained resolute: “When Ellen took her own life, it left me bewildered. She was a wonderful and kind person who had everything to live for.” Everything to live for. It's the phrase that lingers, heavy and uncomfortable, because it doesn't align with what those 20 stab wounds reveal. Those wounds, each cruel and deliberate, were not simply injuries—they were evidence. Evidence that something far worse had taken place in that kitchen. The Forensics That Refuse to Be Ignored Goldberg's statement paints a picture of himself as another victim—the man who lost his future wife to an unseen darkness and then endured relentless suspicion. “In the years that have passed,” he wrote, “I have had to endure the pathetic and despicable attempts to desecrate my reputation by creating a narrative that embraces lies, distortions, and falsehoods.” But the Greenbergs aren't buying it—not then, not now. And neither are the growing number of forensic experts and legal analysts who have scrutinized the case. How does someone stab themselves twenty times? How does a woman—right-handed, according to her family—plunge a knife into her neck, her back, her heart? The geometry alone boggles the mind. Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist hired by the Greenbergs, examined the evidence with a police officer of similar size and build as Ellen. They tried to replicate the movements. “We gave her the knife to see if she could actually contort herself in these positions,” Ross explained during a detailed forensic analysis conducted for the Greenbergs' legal team. “And she couldn't.” And then there's Ellen's spinal cord. Lyndsey Emery, another forensic pathologist, later revealed what may be the most chilling fact of all: Ellen's spinal cord had been severed. Two deep, forceful stabs to the neck. Her brain had been pierced. That alone, experts agree, would have left her paralyzed or dead. “No hemorrhaging,” Emery testified in a deposition, referring specifically to the wounds on Ellen's spinal cord. “No pulse.” This key statement, confirmed during legal proceedings, underscores the medical evidence that Ellen's fatal injuries left her unable to continue any self-inflicted harm. The implication was clear: Ellen could not have inflicted the other wounds on herself after those injuries. She would have been physically incapable of it. The Doorman Who Wasn't There The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to hear the Greenbergs' case marks a rare victory. For the first time, a court acknowledged that Ellen's death may have been more than a tragic misunderstanding—that maybe, just maybe, there had been a rush to judgment. But there's more. Depositions uncovered another key piece of the puzzle—one involving Goldberg's story about breaking down the apartment door. According to police at the time, a doorman claimed he had witnessed Goldberg forcing his way in. That detail became critical, helping authorities conclude Ellen's death was a suicide. Except, years later, the doorman said otherwise. In a signed statement, he revealed he was never there. Security cameras from the building confirmed it: the doorman had been at his post the entire time. The Parents Who Won't Give Up Ellen's parents remain adamant that their daughter was not suicidal. Yes, she had been diagnosed with anxiety, but the psychiatrist who treated her, Dr. Ellen Berman, stated unequivocally that Ellen showed no signs of suicidal intent. Friends noticed a change in her demeanor before her death, describing her as nervous and deferential—a far cry from the confident woman they had once known. Ellen's parents later discovered she had removed her engagement ring that day. She had packed her valuables, including her makeup, as if she were planning to leave. Joshua Greenberg insists in an interview, “She was going to come home. She had a plan.” This statement, made publicly and sourced from verified reports, reflects the family's enduring belief that Ellen's actions that day were not those of someone intending to take her own life. A Story Without an Ending The answers remain elusive, but the Greenbergs aren't giving up. They've uncovered a timeline riddled with inconsistencies, a crime scene marred by contamination, and a ruling built on shaky foundations. And now, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intervention, they may finally have their chance to tear down the wall of silence that has surrounded this case. As for Sam Goldberg, his life has moved on. He's married now, living in New York, raising two children. To his supporters, he is a grieving fiancé who has been unfairly maligned. To the Greenbergs, he remains an enigma, a man at the center of a story that refuses to rest. Joshua Greenberg expressed his frustration plainly in an interview: “There's been a mistake—a big f**king mistake.” His voice, heavy with the weight of 13 years of unanswered questions and legal battles, carried a mixture of grief, anger, and determination. The snow has long since melted, but the questions remain—lingering, unanswered, like the quiet storm that began it all. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The Unrelenting Questions: The Death of Ellen Greenberg The snowstorm outside was relentless, blanketing Philadelphia in a quiet, suffocating stillness. It was January 26, 2011—the kind of day where the world seems to pause, leaving everyone confined to their warm apartments, sipping coffee, watching the flakes tumble. But for Ellen Greenberg, the quiet of her kitchen hid something darker, something that would ignite over a decade of questions, heartbreak, and accusations. Twenty Wounds and a Locked Door Twenty stab wounds. A ten-inch knife still buried in her chest. And a locked door that her fiancé Samuel Goldberg claimed he had to break down. When Goldberg's call came through to 911 that day, his voice was frantic. He'd been at the gym, he told police. He'd forgotten his keys, locked himself out, and after she didn't answer his increasingly desperate knocks, he forced his way in. What he found, he insisted, shattered him: Ellen lying on the kitchen floor, her body surrounded by blood. He claimed he tried CPR, helpless as his fiancée slipped further beyond reach. From the beginning, the scene defied logic. Ellen Greenberg, 27, a beloved teacher, had 20 stab wounds—ten to the back of her head and neck, ten more to her chest, abdomen, and stomach. Yet, almost inexplicably, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office initially called her death a homicide. Then, after a meeting with police and prosecutors, that ruling was quietly changed to suicide. A Family's Relentless Fight For years, Ellen's death has been a study in contradictions. The Greenberg family's quiet suburban lives were upended as they fought against a system that seemed more determined to close the case than solve it. Ellen's parents, Joshua and Sandee, poured their grief into action. They hired forensic experts, pathologists, and lawyers. They combed through every detail. And still, all these years later, their daughter's death certificate reads: Suicide. But now, 13 years later, there's a new twist. Sam Goldberg, the fiancé who found her, has broken his silence, offering his first public comments on a case that has followed him like a shadow. In a statement to CNN, Goldberg remained resolute: “When Ellen took her own life, it left me bewildered. She was a wonderful and kind person who had everything to live for.” Everything to live for. It's the phrase that lingers, heavy and uncomfortable, because it doesn't align with what those 20 stab wounds reveal. Those wounds, each cruel and deliberate, were not simply injuries—they were evidence. Evidence that something far worse had taken place in that kitchen. The Forensics That Refuse to Be Ignored Goldberg's statement paints a picture of himself as another victim—the man who lost his future wife to an unseen darkness and then endured relentless suspicion. “In the years that have passed,” he wrote, “I have had to endure the pathetic and despicable attempts to desecrate my reputation by creating a narrative that embraces lies, distortions, and falsehoods.” But the Greenbergs aren't buying it—not then, not now. And neither are the growing number of forensic experts and legal analysts who have scrutinized the case. How does someone stab themselves twenty times? How does a woman—right-handed, according to her family—plunge a knife into her neck, her back, her heart? The geometry alone boggles the mind. Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist hired by the Greenbergs, examined the evidence with a police officer of similar size and build as Ellen. They tried to replicate the movements. “We gave her the knife to see if she could actually contort herself in these positions,” Ross explained during a detailed forensic analysis conducted for the Greenbergs' legal team. “And she couldn't.” And then there's Ellen's spinal cord. Lyndsey Emery, another forensic pathologist, later revealed what may be the most chilling fact of all: Ellen's spinal cord had been severed. Two deep, forceful stabs to the neck. Her brain had been pierced. That alone, experts agree, would have left her paralyzed or dead. “No hemorrhaging,” Emery testified in a deposition, referring specifically to the wounds on Ellen's spinal cord. “No pulse.” This key statement, confirmed during legal proceedings, underscores the medical evidence that Ellen's fatal injuries left her unable to continue any self-inflicted harm. The implication was clear: Ellen could not have inflicted the other wounds on herself after those injuries. She would have been physically incapable of it. The Doorman Who Wasn't There The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to hear the Greenbergs' case marks a rare victory. For the first time, a court acknowledged that Ellen's death may have been more than a tragic misunderstanding—that maybe, just maybe, there had been a rush to judgment. But there's more. Depositions uncovered another key piece of the puzzle—one involving Goldberg's story about breaking down the apartment door. According to police at the time, a doorman claimed he had witnessed Goldberg forcing his way in. That detail became critical, helping authorities conclude Ellen's death was a suicide. Except, years later, the doorman said otherwise. In a signed statement, he revealed he was never there. Security cameras from the building confirmed it: the doorman had been at his post the entire time. The Parents Who Won't Give Up Ellen's parents remain adamant that their daughter was not suicidal. Yes, she had been diagnosed with anxiety, but the psychiatrist who treated her, Dr. Ellen Berman, stated unequivocally that Ellen showed no signs of suicidal intent. Friends noticed a change in her demeanor before her death, describing her as nervous and deferential—a far cry from the confident woman they had once known. Ellen's parents later discovered she had removed her engagement ring that day. She had packed her valuables, including her makeup, as if she were planning to leave. Joshua Greenberg insists in an interview, “She was going to come home. She had a plan.” This statement, made publicly and sourced from verified reports, reflects the family's enduring belief that Ellen's actions that day were not those of someone intending to take her own life. A Story Without an Ending The answers remain elusive, but the Greenbergs aren't giving up. They've uncovered a timeline riddled with inconsistencies, a crime scene marred by contamination, and a ruling built on shaky foundations. And now, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intervention, they may finally have their chance to tear down the wall of silence that has surrounded this case. As for Sam Goldberg, his life has moved on. He's married now, living in New York, raising two children. To his supporters, he is a grieving fiancé who has been unfairly maligned. To the Greenbergs, he remains an enigma, a man at the center of a story that refuses to rest. Joshua Greenberg expressed his frustration plainly in an interview: “There's been a mistake—a big f**king mistake.” His voice, heavy with the weight of 13 years of unanswered questions and legal battles, carried a mixture of grief, anger, and determination. The snow has long since melted, but the questions remain—lingering, unanswered, like the quiet storm that began it all. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The Unrelenting Questions: The Death of Ellen Greenberg The snowstorm outside was relentless, blanketing Philadelphia in a quiet, suffocating stillness. It was January 26, 2011—the kind of day where the world seems to pause, leaving everyone confined to their warm apartments, sipping coffee, watching the flakes tumble. But for Ellen Greenberg, the quiet of her kitchen hid something darker, something that would ignite over a decade of questions, heartbreak, and accusations. Twenty Wounds and a Locked Door Twenty stab wounds. A ten-inch knife still buried in her chest. And a locked door that her fiancé Samuel Goldberg claimed he had to break down. When Goldberg's call came through to 911 that day, his voice was frantic. He'd been at the gym, he told police. He'd forgotten his keys, locked himself out, and after she didn't answer his increasingly desperate knocks, he forced his way in. What he found, he insisted, shattered him: Ellen lying on the kitchen floor, her body surrounded by blood. He claimed he tried CPR, helpless as his fiancée slipped further beyond reach. From the beginning, the scene defied logic. Ellen Greenberg, 27, a beloved teacher, had 20 stab wounds—ten to the back of her head and neck, ten more to her chest, abdomen, and stomach. Yet, almost inexplicably, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office initially called her death a homicide. Then, after a meeting with police and prosecutors, that ruling was quietly changed to suicide. A Family's Relentless Fight For years, Ellen's death has been a study in contradictions. The Greenberg family's quiet suburban lives were upended as they fought against a system that seemed more determined to close the case than solve it. Ellen's parents, Joshua and Sandee, poured their grief into action. They hired forensic experts, pathologists, and lawyers. They combed through every detail. And still, all these years later, their daughter's death certificate reads: Suicide. But now, 13 years later, there's a new twist. Sam Goldberg, the fiancé who found her, has broken his silence, offering his first public comments on a case that has followed him like a shadow. In a statement to CNN, Goldberg remained resolute: “When Ellen took her own life, it left me bewildered. She was a wonderful and kind person who had everything to live for.” Everything to live for. It's the phrase that lingers, heavy and uncomfortable, because it doesn't align with what those 20 stab wounds reveal. Those wounds, each cruel and deliberate, were not simply injuries—they were evidence. Evidence that something far worse had taken place in that kitchen. The Forensics That Refuse to Be Ignored Goldberg's statement paints a picture of himself as another victim—the man who lost his future wife to an unseen darkness and then endured relentless suspicion. “In the years that have passed,” he wrote, “I have had to endure the pathetic and despicable attempts to desecrate my reputation by creating a narrative that embraces lies, distortions, and falsehoods.” But the Greenbergs aren't buying it—not then, not now. And neither are the growing number of forensic experts and legal analysts who have scrutinized the case. How does someone stab themselves twenty times? How does a woman—right-handed, according to her family—plunge a knife into her neck, her back, her heart? The geometry alone boggles the mind. Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist hired by the Greenbergs, examined the evidence with a police officer of similar size and build as Ellen. They tried to replicate the movements. “We gave her the knife to see if she could actually contort herself in these positions,” Ross explained during a detailed forensic analysis conducted for the Greenbergs' legal team. “And she couldn't.” And then there's Ellen's spinal cord. Lyndsey Emery, another forensic pathologist, later revealed what may be the most chilling fact of all: Ellen's spinal cord had been severed. Two deep, forceful stabs to the neck. Her brain had been pierced. That alone, experts agree, would have left her paralyzed or dead. “No hemorrhaging,” Emery testified in a deposition, referring specifically to the wounds on Ellen's spinal cord. “No pulse.” This key statement, confirmed during legal proceedings, underscores the medical evidence that Ellen's fatal injuries left her unable to continue any self-inflicted harm. The implication was clear: Ellen could not have inflicted the other wounds on herself after those injuries. She would have been physically incapable of it. The Doorman Who Wasn't There The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to hear the Greenbergs' case marks a rare victory. For the first time, a court acknowledged that Ellen's death may have been more than a tragic misunderstanding—that maybe, just maybe, there had been a rush to judgment. But there's more. Depositions uncovered another key piece of the puzzle—one involving Goldberg's story about breaking down the apartment door. According to police at the time, a doorman claimed he had witnessed Goldberg forcing his way in. That detail became critical, helping authorities conclude Ellen's death was a suicide. Except, years later, the doorman said otherwise. In a signed statement, he revealed he was never there. Security cameras from the building confirmed it: the doorman had been at his post the entire time. The Parents Who Won't Give Up Ellen's parents remain adamant that their daughter was not suicidal. Yes, she had been diagnosed with anxiety, but the psychiatrist who treated her, Dr. Ellen Berman, stated unequivocally that Ellen showed no signs of suicidal intent. Friends noticed a change in her demeanor before her death, describing her as nervous and deferential—a far cry from the confident woman they had once known. Ellen's parents later discovered she had removed her engagement ring that day. She had packed her valuables, including her makeup, as if she were planning to leave. Joshua Greenberg insists in an interview, “She was going to come home. She had a plan.” This statement, made publicly and sourced from verified reports, reflects the family's enduring belief that Ellen's actions that day were not those of someone intending to take her own life. A Story Without an Ending The answers remain elusive, but the Greenbergs aren't giving up. They've uncovered a timeline riddled with inconsistencies, a crime scene marred by contamination, and a ruling built on shaky foundations. And now, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intervention, they may finally have their chance to tear down the wall of silence that has surrounded this case. As for Sam Goldberg, his life has moved on. He's married now, living in New York, raising two children. To his supporters, he is a grieving fiancé who has been unfairly maligned. To the Greenbergs, he remains an enigma, a man at the center of a story that refuses to rest. Joshua Greenberg expressed his frustration plainly in an interview: “There's been a mistake—a big f**king mistake.” His voice, heavy with the weight of 13 years of unanswered questions and legal battles, carried a mixture of grief, anger, and determination. The snow has long since melted, but the questions remain—lingering, unanswered, like the quiet storm that began it all. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/ The Texan's Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion. Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email editor@thetexan.news — they just might be answered on a future podcast.Happy Thanksgiving! This week on The Texan's “Weekly Roundup,” the team discusses:Trump Nominates Texans Scott Turner, Brooke Rollins for Presidential CabinetPost-Election Breakdowns, Numbers, and History: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 10PUC Crypto RuleEnd of Texas CentennialTexas Supreme Court Halts Trial Court's Depositions of Ken Paxton, Aides in Whistleblower Suit

In this rebroadcast of our 2022 interview, we gather all sorts of admissions—about depositions—from NITA NextGen alumni Jason Young. After taking and defending thousands of depositions throughout his career, he's no-nonsense and has figured out how to make the challenges easier on himself, his clients, and his witnesses. Jason also talks about the crucial work–life decisions all lawyers face as they begin their careers.Topics 3:46 The hard part of taking depositions  5:55 Federal rules related to depositions 9:13 Witnesses, both expert and lay   11:36 Role of social media  15:10 When to video-record a deposition  17:35 The hard part of dealing with witnesses 19:40 Timelines for expert witnesses, plaintiff versus defendant 22:07 Subpoenas 25:00 Obnoxious opposing counsel 30:50 Preparing your witness 34:42 Protecting your witness 37:53 Remote depositions 40:31 Work–life balance and advice for new lawyers 44:35 Signoff questions Quote “What a lot of inexperienced deposition lawyers have a problem with is they are terrified of the unknown in depositions and afraid to follow up on things, know how to shut things down, and that really scares a lot of people. And I guess the thinking with depositions a lot of times is, you want to know more. If there's information that's going to come out that's going to hurt me, I want to know it in a deposition. If there's additional facts I need or something I didn't know, I'd rather find out in a depo than in trial.” Jason Young Resources Jason Young (bio) Blog interview (The Legal Advocate) Federal Rules of Evidence with Objections (book) NITA Deposition programs (registration) 

Join Ben and Rahul for a conversation with Spencer Lucas, Partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi, in which Spencer talks about his recent $135 million verdict on behalf of two victims of sexual assault by a teacher at a public school, and his work on the leadership trial teams representing sexual assault victims in claims against the Los Angeles Catholic Diocese and Boy Scouts of America.  Spencer talks about how he found a passion for championing the rights of victims of sexual assault and how he has navigated the complexities of proving that the school district and Catholic Diocese had prior notice that the teacher and priest were harming children and failed to act upon that information to protect his clients.   About Spencer Lucas https://www.panish.law/Spencer Lucas is a trial lawyer and partner at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP specializing in litigating complex catastrophic personal injury, products liability, wrongful death, and sexual abuse cases. A member of the firm since 2007, he has extensive experience in cases involving traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, amputations and has successfully recovered over $600 million for his clients. Mr. Lucas prides himself on not only helping survivors of trauma and their families recover from tragic situations but by implementing institutional safeguards for the community.Ranked among the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers in 2022, Mr. Lucas is recognized as a leading trial lawyer in California trying cases in venues across the state resulting in eight-figure verdicts. He has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work in the courtroom including nominations as Consumer Attorney of the Year by Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) and Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA).  Mr. Lucas is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) with an elevated rank of Associate due to the number of lengthy trials to verdict he has completed and is annually recognized as a Best Lawyer in America® .Mr. Lucas has obtained numerous eight-figure verdicts and settlements in cases throughout California, including the following:$135 million verdict for two men who were sexually abused as students by a teacher in the Moreno Valley Unified School District.$48,500,000 settlement at the beginning of trial involving a 26-year-old man who was struck by a corporate vehicle and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.$30,000,000 settlementat the beginning of trial involving a 33-year-old man who was struck by a tractor-trailer and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.$19,466,000 verdict In Zastawnik v. Asplundh Construction, for his client who suffered severe ankle fractures and resulting pain disorder after being struck by a construction truck while riding a motorcycle.$17,120,672 verdict In Huayanca v. Southland Transit District, for his 83 year old client who sustained a below the knee amputation after being struck by a bus in a crosswalk.$13,000,000 verdict in Doe v. EōS Fitness,  in Riverside County Superior Court for a young girl who was sexually molested while in the care of EōS Fitness' Kid's Club in Palm Springs, California. This verdict is believed to be one of the largest of its kind in America.$15,313,703 verdict in Francisco v. AC Transit, for a client who suffered a back injury while riding on a city bus.$15,000,000 verdict in Tilton v. Southern California Gas Company, for a teenager who sustained a closed head injury after his vehicle was struck by a Southern California Gas Company utility truck.$14,500,000 verdict in Barber v. Mossy Ford , in a complex tire failure case arising from a accident in which the parents of three young boys were killed.  Along with settlements reached with other defendants, the total award was in excess of $22 million.$14,000,000 verdict in Curiel v. SSA Marine, for a man who suffered serious spinal cord injuries after a crane operator dropped a 25,000 lb. container onto the cab of his truck.$21,000,000 verdict in Nelsen v. Hillyard Inc., for an Iraq war veteran who suffered a brain injury after being rear-ended by a commercial vehicle at high speed.$20,000,000 verdict in Rivas v. J.B. Hunt , for a woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer.$10,500,000 in Nichols v. Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit, on behalf of a woman who suffered serious orthopedic injuries when she was struck by an AC Transit bus while crossing the street.  The case settled for $10.5 million.$8,652,580 award in the matter of of Haskell v. Farmers Insurance, on behalf of his client who suffered pelvic injuries. The settlement offer in this case prior to the award was $300,000.Outside the courtroom, Mr. Lucas is a frequent speaker on various issues, including traumatic brain, spinal cord injuries, and sexual abuse, and actively publishes articles in trade publications on a wide range of legal topics. He also spends much of his time dedicated to assisting his clients recovering from trauma obtain the best medical treatment available.In addition to his work as a trial lawyer, Mr. Lucas is a member of the Pepperdine School of Law Dean's Council and serves on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers' Charities (LATLC) which funds many local charity groups focusing on education, survivors of abuse, children, and the homeless.Originally from Seattle, Washington Mr. Lucas graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Business Administration.  During his undergraduate work, he completed an International Business program with honors from the University of Sevilla in 1999. He graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law in 2004, where he was the co-founder of the Pepperdine International Human Rights Program.Fluent in Spanish, Mr. Lucas works with many of the firm's Spanish-speaking clients and is frequently asked to give legal commentary on national Spanish television and radio programs.  He has lived in Havana, Cuba, and throughout Mexico, where he spent his summers in college building homes for the homeless in Ciudad Juarez.Mr. Lucas is a member of the State Bar of California, the District of Columbia Bar and the Washington State Bar Association. He is an active member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Consumer Attorneys of California, and Los Angeles County Bar Association, and regularly volunteers his time providing pro-bono legal services to foster children and children facing immigration deportation proceedings.

The generative artificial intelligence tool is not just designed to transcribe depositions. It looks for inconsistencies. It suggests questions to ask. It analyzes the transcript in real time to see whether there are issues that have to be cleared up or areas of weakness to address. In other words, it's like having another attorney in the room—only one who's capable of digesting large amounts of data and analyzing it quickly.

The generative artificial intelligence tool is not just designed to transcribe depositions. It looks for inconsistencies. It suggests questions to ask. It analyzes the transcript in real time to see whether there are issues that have to be cleared up or areas of weakness to address. In other words, it's like having another attorney in the room—only one who's capable of digesting large amounts of data and analyzing it quickly.

The generative artificial intelligence tool is not just designed to transcribe depositions. It looks for inconsistencies. It suggests questions to ask. It analyzes the transcript in real time to see whether there are issues that have to be cleared up or areas of weakness to address. In other words, it's like having another attorney in the room—only one who's capable of digesting large amounts of data and analyzing it quickly.

Send us a textJokes about lawyers and technology are one of those things that tend to write themselves, but in my conversation this week with Karl Seelbach I walked away thinking about how the days of being a tech-averse profession may very well be coming to an end. A seasoned litigator, Karl is also the founder of SKRIBE AI, a software platform for capturing and analyzing legal testimony as an alternative to the traditional court reporting service. As someone who has taken more depositions than they could count, what Karl and his team are doing piqued my interest and I wanted to chat with him about how they're navigating new legal frontiers while also acknowledging the potential for disruption.We talk about everything from how low cost depositions can increase access the justice to what AI REALLY can and can't do.It was one of the most wide-ranging conversations we had so far on A.I., so give it a listen and enjoy the show. 

Expand your toolkit and improve your legal practice with our guest, Karl Seelbach, co-founder of Skribe. In this episode, Karl shares his journey from aspiring plaintiff's lawyer to co-founding his own defense firm.  Learn how Karl is transforming the legal field with Skribe, a tool designed to simplify legal depositions and video evidence management. Hear about the challenges that led to Skribe's creation and how its products are addressing common pain points like high costs and delays. Explore the evolving landscape of legal depositions and the features of Skribe's AI-powered tools. Karl discusses the benefits and limitations of remote depositions, the issue of stenographer shortages, and how Skribe's software offers a practical alternative. In this episode, you will hear: Skribe's creation to address deposition challenges The benefits of remote depositions The impact of AI-powered tools on deposition management Advice for integrating technology in legal practices Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: If you would like to learn more about Skribe, you can email Karl with your questions: karl@skribe.com or visit https://skribe.ai/ Get results, spend less money. Check out https://skribe.ai/ for your deposition needs and remember to mention Trial Lawyer Prep podcast! Episode Credits If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com Let them know I sent you.

It's a wonderful time to be alive, as long as you can afford food. Knowing what the future holds will help too. Cue up the special forces and get ready for big changes. The Trump Harris debate takes center stage. Their backup plan is insane. Trump will be locked up to spark a civil war. There's going to be another debate. Lots of court cases are happening. Depositions are ongoing. Doing things for good will keep you elevated. It only works if you are honorable. Retarded means thinking backwards. Trump's circles are tightened. Some groups don't know each other. Enemies are wrapped around his ankles. The people from within can hurt you the most. Some trains have already passed us by. Fake news is propaganda. Qatar owns much of our media by the way. Check Hunter's laptop. The Serbian's gave a highway to Biden. So many countries used spies against Trump. The color revolution in Ukraine included a rigged election. Those same people were at J6. On November 5th, there will be a simulation ransom attack. The debate could have been better for DJT, but it doesn't matter. It's the people that have to take the country back.

Join Ben and Rahul for their discussion with Jake and Tor, breaking down the recent 495 million Dollar verdict in a product liability case against Abbott Laboratories for pre-term infant formula that increases the risks for developing necrotizing enterocolitis. Hear how Jake and Tor navigated this difficult case and won this epic battle. About Jacob Plattenbergerhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/team/jake-plattenberger/Jacob Plattenberger has taken hundreds of depositions, argued in countless hearings, and tried over 35 cases to a jury.His experience in and out of the courtroom has made him a passionate advocate for those injured due to the negligence of others.Jake started his career trying cases at one of the busiest civil courthouses in the country – the Richard J. Daley Center in downtown Chicago.He started out doing insurance defense because he knew that afforded him the best opportunity to get courtroom experience.“When I was working on the defense side, I always knew that I was going to be a plaintiff's lawyer. I knew that being able and willing to try a case to a jury was a skill that I needed to have if I was going to be able to offer my clients the best legal representation. Insurance companies and corporate defendants need to believe you when you say you will take them to trial – they need to fear that.”This type of real trial experience is exceedingly rare in complex civil litigation and having seen it from the defense side gives Jake an added advantage.At TorHoerman Law, Jake manages our Chicago office where he leads trial teams in nationwide, complex litigations such as:Representing dozens of workers across the United States who were exposed to Diacetyl at work and now suffer lung diseaseeg. The Juul/E-cigarette LitigationThe Incretin Mimetics Products Liability Litigation, currently pending in the Southern District of California, where he was named to the Plaintiff's Steering CommitteeVarious Transvaginal Mesh multidistrict litigations that are currently pendingJake also maintains a personal injury practice in Chicago, representing people and their families who have been victims of catastrophic auto and truck accidents, products liability, maritime accidents, premises liability, and medical negligence.Jake believes that to successfully represent his clients, it is absolutely necessary to get personally involved.Jake's quote below perfectly reflects that belief! Notable Cases & ResultsIncretin Mimetics – Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD). Appointed to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee by Judge Battaglia in the MDL. The case is pending.JUUL E-Cigarettes – Products Liability Litigation, JCCP No. 5052. Appointed to the Plaintiff's Steering Committee by Judge Anne Jones in the JCCP. The case is pending.Diacetyl – Leads the Diacetyl litigation for TorHoerman Law. Previous settlements and verdicts have exceeded $5,000,000.00 to date. Litigation is currently ongoing.Actos Related Cases, MDL Case No. 11 L 10011, Et. Al. – Actively participated in managing the case for TorHoerman Law which resulted in a $2.4 billion settlement.Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents Litigation Case No. 279 and Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 1909 – Managed the cases for TorHoerman Law which resulted in a large, confidential settlement.Bus Accident – Handled a bus accident injury case in which an individual was thrown from a seat. Resulted in a $850,000.00 settlement.Auto Accident – Handled an auto accident injury case that resulted in a $650,000.00 settlement.Slip and Fall – Handled a slip and fall accident that occurred on a sightseeing boat in Chicago. Resulted in a $490,000.00 settlement. Personal LifeJake was born and raised in Chicago.He now lives in the Chicago suburbs, where his two young sons keep him busy.When he isn't working, Jake is a lifelong Bears and Cubs fan and loves participating in the (mostly) healthy rivalry between the Cubs and Cardinals fans at TorHoerman Law.   About Tor Hoermanhttps://www.torhoermanlaw.com/team/tor-hoerman/Tor Hoerman is a nationally recognized attorney who has served in the field for more than 25 years.He is most well-known as the founder of the personal injury law firm TorHoerman Law, LLC (THL). Early Life & EducationTor was born the youngest of four boys on July 16, 1969, in Bethesda, Maryland to Kirk and Greta Hoerman.With his father serving as a Captain in the Navy, Tor often moved towns during his childhood, eventually landing in the Chicago metropolitan area.In Chicago, Tor lived in the Great Lakes Naval Base and Lake Bluff before his family settled in Lake Forest, which is where he attended high school.Despite repeatedly switching homes, Tor made the most of his situation.In high school, he played football, basketball, and baseball, and he earned varsity letters in each of these sports.In addition to varsity recognition, he was recognized as an All-county athlete and awarded the Booster Club Athlete of the Year his senior year.Outside of sports, Tor coached little league baseball, served as a summer camp counselor, and worked as a summertime janitor at his former high school after graduating.Tor attended Depauw University and majored in Political Science.He played NCAA baseball and football at Depauw, and he was the captain of the baseball team.After graduating from Depauw in 1991, Tor enrolled in the Chicago-Kent College of Law.During law school, Tor bartended at a local bar and clerked for Kravolec, Jambois & Schwartz, LLC. Legal CareerAfter graduating from law school in 1995, Tor took on a job doing insurance defense at Bolero, Cart & Stone, LLC, where he worked reluctantly for a year and a half.One day at work, Tor received a phone call from Steve Jambois, his former employer throughout law school, asking if he wanted a job on the plaintiff's side of insurance law.Tor immediately accepted the job, kickstarting decades to come of fighting corporations on behalf of harmed individuals.Tor's Transition to Medical Malpractice LitigationTor returned to Kravolec, Jambois & Schwartz to fight on behalf of medical malpractice victims, which mostly consisted of high-intensity trial work in the Chicago courthouse.After seven years at the Jambois firm, Hoeman was recruited by the Simmons law firm, based in an Illinois suburb of St. Louis, to start and lead a branch of the practice that focused on pharmaceutical litigation.Leading the Pharmaceutical Practice at Simmons Law FirmTor became a partner of what is now Simmons, Hanly, and Conroy and led the pharmaceutical practice for seven years.One of Tor most notable achievements while leading the practice was his work against Purdue Pharma and its reckless distribution of OxyContin.Tor was the first to file a case alleging Purdue Pharma's wrongdoing in distributing OxyContin and failing to adequately warn healthcare providers and the public of the risks of addiction.Achieving Justice Against Purdue PharmaHe led the litigation process and got Purdue Pharma to agree to a large settlement, which was distributed to thousands of accidental addicts.Tor took a step further to achieve justice in this case, assisting the Department of Justice in obtaining guilty pleas by Purdue Pharma representatives who had a direct role in contributing to the opioid epidemic. Founding TorHoerman LawHaving garnered success leading the pharmaceutical branch at the Simmons firm, Tor amicably decided to split from Simmons in 2009 and start his own pharmaceutical and personal injury practice called TorHoerman Law, LLC (THL).After negotiating the terms of the split, Tor struck a deal that allowed him to bring his entire staff from Simmons to his new practice, which summed up to more than 25 lawyers and staff members.Expansion and Success of THLTor opened offices in Edwardsville, IL; Clayton, MO; and Chicago, IL to kickstart operations; all three offices remain open today.In the time since opening THL, Tor and his team have litigated many pharmaceutical malpractice and personal injury cases.Notable Successes at THLTor's most notable successes while operating THL are perhaps co-leading the litigations against Boehringer Ingelheim's Pradaxa and Takeda's Actos.Through intense research and vetting, Tor was able to find substantial evidence indicating Actos causes bladder cancer and Pradaxa causes internal bleeding.He then presented the evidence to the companies, which decided to settle the cases.Tor played a significant role in negotiating these settlements, which ended up being $650 million for Pradaxa and $2.4 billion for Actos.Tor has also had major success in several other product liability lawsuits, such as Zelnorm, Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents, and Incretin Mimetics.We've outlined these cases, a few other notable cases, and their correlating results in the section below.Recognition & AwardsHis successes with these cases and beyond earned him the distinction as a Top 25 Notable Alumni from the Chicago-Kent School of Law, which was awarded to him and 24 other lawyers out of the tens of thousands who have graduated from the school since its founding in 1888.Tor is also recognized as a Top 100 National Trial Lawyer by the National Trial Lawyers Organization. Notable Cases & ResultsPradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) – Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2385 – Appointed by Judge Herndon as national lead counsel in the MDL. After protracted litigation successfully negotiated a $650 million settlement.Actos Related Cases, MDL Case No. 11 L 10011, Et. Al. – Appointed by Judge Dooling as lead counsel in Cook County consolidated docket (over 4400 cases). After protracted litigation, he was one of four lead negotiators (along with Pete Flowers, Mark Lanier, and Andy Birchfield) on a $2.4 billion settlement.Incretin Mimetics Products Liability Litigation, MDL Case No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD) – Appointed as lead counsel by Judge Battaglia in the MDL. The case is pending.OxyContin – Represented thousands of “accidental addicts”. After protracted litigation, he negotiated a large settlement and assisted the DOJ in obtaining guilty pleas by corporate representatives.Zelnorm Litigation., Case No. 280 – Appointed lead counsel in NJ state court consolidation, took the major depositions and negotiated a confidential settlement.Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents Litigation Case No. 279 and Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 1909 – Appointed by Judge Polster as both the state and federal liaison and lead counsel in the Cook County consolidated docket. He negotiated large, confidential, individual settlements. Involvement in the Legal CommunityIn addition to his litigation work, Tor is on the Board of Managers of the Illinois Trial Lawyer Association and an Executive Board Member of the Mass Torts Trial Lawyer Association.He also attends national legal conferences on a yearly basis. Personal LifePersonally, Tor is the proud father of Casey, Kirsten and Quinn, and husband of Jessica.He tries to stay active, including still playing baseball.

Join Ben for his conversation with Dylan Ruga, trial lawyer and co-founder and President of Steno, a long-time sponsor of the pod.  Dylan updates us on the new functionality and services offered by his innovative court reporting service, Steno.  Steno allows plaintiff attorneys to defer costs of court reporting and videographer services until the end of the case.  In states that allow it, these deferred costs can be non-recourse.  Steno now operates through the Zoom platform but offers an app that integrates with Zoom and makes collating, marking, annotating, and saving exhibits at depositions seamless.  Steno also offers videographer services that enable recording of the witness and exhibits and post-production editing so that witnesses and exhibits can be presented in optimal fashion without requiring substantial attorney time or other vendor for editing.  Dylan also discusses the roll out of a new product, Transcript Genius, which uses AI that has been specifically training to understand and interpret deposition transcripts to enable lawyers to query one or multiple transcripts to quickly identify key admissions, information, or contradictions in witness testimony.  If you are a trial lawyer who handles a volume of depositions, you will gain a lot of insight and value from this episode. Dylan is the Co-Founder, President and Chief Legal Officer at Steno, where he stewards business development initiatives and forges new partnerships. Dylan is also a founding member of Stalwart Law Group, recognized as one of California's top 20 litigation boutiques. He is a practicing trial lawyer with more than 15 years of experience in intellectual property, professional liability, and commercial litigation.

Depositions are expected in divorce or family law matters. All sorts of witnesses may be deposed. During a divorce or family law deposition, one attorney asks the witnesses under oath to discover relevant information. Information is relevant if reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. During the deposition, the other attorney in the case can also ask the witness questions. Sometimes, however, one of the lawyers on the case will object to a question being asked. Most often, it is the lawyer for the deposed witness who objects. Listen to this episode to find out what role deposition objections can have in family law cases. This episode is based on an article on Family Law Headquarters titled: How deposition objections work You can learn more by contacting our St. Louis family lawyers online or by calling 855-805-0595.

Ever got called up to testify in court after a project turned into a legal war?

(THIS IS A REPLAY)This week we cover “Opening, Focus Groups, and Depositions” with J.David Stradley.Contact J. David Stradley at:phone: (919) 424-9400 • fax: (919) 845-9745email: stradley@whiteandstradley.com3105 Charles B. Root WyndRaleigh, NC 27612

Welcome to the "Week in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.       This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.       Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.  Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Welcome to the "Week in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.       This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.       Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.  Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In the podcast "Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski," Tony is joined by former Felony Prosecutor and attorney Eric Faddis to discuss the mysterious and controversial case of Ellen Greenberg. Ellen, who was found dead with 20 stab wounds, had her death initially ruled as a suicide, a conclusion that baffles anyone familiar with the details of the case. The conversation dives into the recent developments that have allowed Ellen's family to push for further investigation. The family's persistent efforts have led to a breakthrough where the former district attorney, Guy D'Andrea, suggested that Ellen's death was a homicide, not a suicide, based on forensic evidence. This has opened the door for discovery and depositions that could reshape the understanding of the case and potentially lead to it being reclassified as a homicide. **Main Points Discussed:** - **Dubious Suicide Ruling:** The implausibility of Ellen stabbing herself 20 times, including post-mortem wounds, casts serious doubts on the suicide ruling. - **Judicial Progress:** The courts have now allowed Ellen Greenberg's family to proceed with discovery and question key figures like former district attorney Guy D'Andrea under oath about the original investigation. - **Impact of Reclassification:** Discusses how reclassifying Ellen's death as homicide could significantly impact the investigation, prompting authorities to actively pursue it as a criminal case. - **Public and Legal Pressure:** The case's high profile might drive the investigative authorities to delve deeper due to public outcry and the need for resolution. - **Challenges of Cold Cases:** The inherent difficulties in reopening a case many years after the fact, which can significantly slow down the process. #EllenGreenberg #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #MurderOrSuicide #ForensicInvestigation #ColdCaseReopening #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In the podcast "Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski," Tony is joined by former Felony Prosecutor and attorney Eric Faddis to discuss the mysterious and controversial case of Ellen Greenberg. Ellen, who was found dead with 20 stab wounds, had her death initially ruled as a suicide, a conclusion that baffles anyone familiar with the details of the case. The conversation dives into the recent developments that have allowed Ellen's family to push for further investigation. The family's persistent efforts have led to a breakthrough where the former district attorney, Guy D'Andrea, suggested that Ellen's death was a homicide, not a suicide, based on forensic evidence. This has opened the door for discovery and depositions that could reshape the understanding of the case and potentially lead to it being reclassified as a homicide. **Main Points Discussed:** - **Dubious Suicide Ruling:** The implausibility of Ellen stabbing herself 20 times, including post-mortem wounds, casts serious doubts on the suicide ruling. - **Judicial Progress:** The courts have now allowed Ellen Greenberg's family to proceed with discovery and question key figures like former district attorney Guy D'Andrea under oath about the original investigation. - **Impact of Reclassification:** Discusses how reclassifying Ellen's death as homicide could significantly impact the investigation, prompting authorities to actively pursue it as a criminal case. - **Public and Legal Pressure:** The case's high profile might drive the investigative authorities to delve deeper due to public outcry and the need for resolution. - **Challenges of Cold Cases:** The inherent difficulties in reopening a case many years after the fact, which can significantly slow down the process. #EllenGreenberg #TonyBrueski #EricFaddis #MurderOrSuicide #ForensicInvestigation #ColdCaseReopening #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The court ruling in the spotlight today is a reminder that it's critically important to include evidentiary support when you seek a protective order - to relieve a party or witness of the obligation to travel for deposition - based on financial, medical or caregiver reasons. It also reminds us of the importance of providing your judge with the most recent case law, which is trending toward routinely allowing remote depositions in most situations. As always, Jim Garrity provides critical practice tips and insights on the issue. Have a great week!Show NotesHosie v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, Case No: 1:22-cv-00265-MR-WCM, 2024 WL 1685557 (W. D. N. C. Apr. 18, 2024) (finding insufficient record evidentiary support to warrant protective order relieving Plaintiff of obligation to travel for her deposition)Henry v. Tacoma Police Department, et al., No. 3:22-cv-05523-LK, 2023 WL 5530201 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28, 2023) (expressing view that remote depositions can be as effective or more effective than in person depositions for credibility determinations, in part because remote plaintiffs appearing by video do not need to wear masks)

Sara Williams currently practices at Alexander Shunnarah Trial Attorneys headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, where she handles primarily trucking, wrongful death and catastrophic injury litigation. Sara has collected over $30 million in verdicts and settlements on behalf of her clients, including a $12 million dollar verdict against the Birmingham Max Bus system arising out of a collision caused by that transit system's failure to properly monitor the health of its drivers resulting in a driver passing out while driving a bus. From 2017 through the close of 2021 she served as the managing attorney for the firm. During that time the firm would grow to include over 100 attorneys and over 400 staff members in offices in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Massachusetts. Prior to joining the Alexander Shunnarah firm, Sara spent the first half of her career defending trucking companies and drivers. She has recently returned to a more active practice after spending the last three years as the firm's managing attorney, during which time the firm grew to over 65 lawyers and over 300 employees with offices in nine states. In 2021 Sara decided to step away from her role as managing attorney to re-focus on her litigation practice and developing a social media campaign focused on empowering women lawyers. Sara is an adjunct professor of Trial Advocacy at Cumberland School of Law where she teaches Advanced Skills in Trial Advocacy-Civil and Depositions and Technology. She is a 2003 graduate of Florida State University and a 2006 graduate of Cumberland School of Law.

Man Shoots Chipotle Worker, Attorney killed during depositions https://linktr.ee/risencrime Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When we talk about the bullying problem in America, we tend to focus on the children who are tormented in school or online because bullies eventually grow up and act like adults, right? Unfortunately, some bullies never learn to act like decent human beings, and they carry their crude behaviors into adulthood where it can be modeled as successful tactics to children. Between younger generations taking offense to the smallest microaggression and older generations tendencies to make brazen, hurtful comments, it's clear that bullying is taking its toll on civilization, and it is showing up in our politics. Can we combat adult bullies before society deteriorates even further? Today host Jack Russo and Tom Casey discuss the lack of respectable leadership in both business and politics.   Bullying Insults by Biden: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6350002337112 Is Musk a Bully?: https://www.law360.com/articles/1823593/attachments/1 Bullying in Depositions: https://www.law360.com/articles/1823593/attachments/0 Trump Suggests Biden Defecated on Oval Office Desk: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/donald-trump-bizarrely-suggests-biden-has-s-t-on-oval-office-desk Trump's Shifting Abortion Stance: https://wapo.st/3TNBNxT   https://discussionpartners.com/   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️

Get the links to each show here: http://JustinBarclay.comGet up to $10,000 in free silver with qualified accounts from my new partners at Goldco!Go to JustinLikesGold.com to get a free 2024 Gold Kit or call 855.512.GOLD (4653) #goldopartnerTry Cue Streaming for just $2 / day and help support the good guys https://justinbarclay.com/cueUp to 80% OFF! Use promo code JUSTIN http://MyPillow.com/JustinPatriots are making the Switch! What if we could start voting with our dollars too? http://SwitchWithJustin.comNo matter what's coming, you can be ready for your family and others. http://PrepareWithJustin.com#ad

Join Victor Davis Hanson and cohost Sami Winc in the Friday news round up: Hunter's deposition, Michigan elections, predicting the 2024 election, Smirnov's arrest, Eric Adam's reservation about sanctuary city status, Kirby says no troops on Ukrainian ground, and Prime Minister Netanyahu interviewed.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at https://www.oneskin.co #oneskinpod #adGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Go to https://fastgrowingtrees.com and use code LAWNERD to get 15% off your entire order!The civil case between the parents of Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie has been reluctantly settled prior to a full jury trial. In my coverage of this lawsuit, I went through the motions for summary judgment but not the depositions.Today, I am covering the submitted depositions from attorney Steven Bertolino, as well as Christopher and Roberta Laundrie. We hear how they respond to the pointed questions about what they knew, their involvement in the case, and what they thought when Brian called them before the investigation into Gabby's disappearance.I also cover the sentencing of Ruby Franke & Jodi Hildebrandt. They will both be imprisoned for at least 4 years, with a maximum penalty of 30 years. The final decision on that sentence will be determined by a Parole Board at a later date.This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacyPodscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Missouri Congressman Jason Smith, Chair of the House Means and Ways Committee, joins Mark Reardon to discuss the upcoming Hunter Biden deposition this week, James Biden's deposition last week, and more.

Why do some courts and lawyers instinctively react to examinations under oath (EUOs), also called sworn statements, as if they're "secret depositions?" When conducted properly, they clearly aren't. But the issue still arises from time to time. In this episode Garrity talks about two recent court rulings. One is from a Florida federal judge that rejected an effort to have the court treat EUOs and depositions as one and the same. The other, from South Carolina, sanctioned a defendant for taking an EUO that the court said in essence was the very deposition the court had forbidden. Garrity offers some fantastic thoughts and tips for conducting EUOs in a way that mnimizes the risk a court will confuse them with depositions, which are an intellectually and procedurally different animal.SHOW NOTESFed. R. Civ. P. 30, Depositions by Oral Examination (main federal deposition rule, outlining the procedural requirements for an oral examination to constitute a deposition)Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Strike Sworn Statement, etc. Jett v. Del Toro, Case No. 5:22-cv-90-MW-MJF, Docket No. 46, (N. D. Fla. Sep. 21, 2023) (rejecting argument that a sworn statement taken with a court reporter under oath is a deposition; further, “The traditional practice of securing affidavits for use in support of summary judgment often involves a statement written by counsel specifically for that purpose, which is then presented to and signed by the affiant. This Court fails to see how an unedited transcription of the witness's own words, is not, if anything, substantially more reliable than the traditional alternative”)Defendant's Motion to Strike, etc., Jett v. Del Toro, Case No. 5:22-cv-90-MW-MJF, Docket No. 38, (N. D. Fla. filed August 11, 2023) (unsuccessfully arguing that sworn statements or EUO's “are simply unnoticed depositions”)Reed v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Inc., 160 F.R.D. 572 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 1995) (rejecting motion to strike statement of plaintiff conducted by plaintiff's counsel under oath and before a court reporter; rejecting arguments that statement could not be considered because it wasn't signed by the plaintiff, contained leading questions, and was taken without defendant having the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, saying defendant was in the same position it would have been if an affidavit by the witness had been filed, as the defendant would not have been able to cross-examine the affidavit, either)Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that statement made under oath before court reporter was inadmissible for summary judgment purposes because it was neither signed nor taken in the presence of defendants lawyers to allow cross-examination; held, “We reject this argument. Sworn statements given before court reporters or at least as reliable as signed affidavits and are properly considered on summary judgment”)Glenn v. 3M Co., 440 S.C. 34, 95, 890 S.E.2d 569, 602 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (Aug. 10, 2023) (sanctioning counsel for taking “sworn statement” of witness whose deposition court had prohibited, where statement was under oath, was “in the question-and-answer format typical of a deposition,” and taken before a reporter and at the same day and time as the proposed deposition the court has prohibited; held, “. . . Fisher Controls wholly disregarded this [c]ourt's order prohibiting Dr. Timothy Oury's deposition. Although Fisher Controls labeled the deposition a “sworn statement,” the statement is clearly a deposition submitted under a label which would not immediately invoke the [c]ourt's ire. The statement was transcribed by an official [c]ourt [r]eporter on the day and at the time that Fisher Controls had originally scheduled Dr. Oury's deposition—a deposition prohibited by an Order of Protection from this [c]ourt.”)Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Protective Order, Zorn v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 6:09-CV-00081-BAE-GRS, 2010 WL 4253299 (S.D.Ga. July 22, 2010) (“Plaintiff also asserts that because he underwent an examination under oath (EUO) during the claims process, he should somehow be exempt from a deposition in his own, subsequent lawsuit. Plaintiff cites no authority for this position, and the case law is to the contrary. See Kamin v. Central States Fire Ins. Co., 22 F.R.D. 220 (E.D.N.Y. 1958) (denying motion for protective order to preclude depositions on the grounds that EUOs had been taken); Oreman Sales, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 1991 WL 87936 (E.D. La. May 23, 1991) (same); Sentry Ins. v. Shivers, 164 F.R.D. 255, 256 (D. Kan. 1996) (“Taking a statement of a party, sworn or unsworn, pursuant to investigating a claim or potential lawsuit, does not equate with deposing him or her.”); Joe's Market Fish, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 1998 WL 851504 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 1998) (“an examination under oath does not immunize an individual from a later deposition”); Jones v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 129 F.R.D. 170 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 2, 1990)(“Undoubtedly State Farm now has information which was not available at the time of the examination under oath.”)St. Francis Hosp., Inc. v. Grp. Hosp. Serv., 598 P.2d 238, 240–41 (Okla. 1979) (saying a “[d]eposition has been defined by various jurisdictions as being confined to the written testimony of a witness given in the course of a judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing, upon oral examination or in response to written interrogatories where an opportunity for cross-examination is given”)Brooks v. Tate, No. 1:11-CV-01503 AWI, 2013 WL 4049053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (“By definition , “a ‘deposition' is the examination under oath by ‘oral questions' of a party or deponent.” Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D.Cal.2008). A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give written notice to every other party, stating the time and place of the deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1). “Where a deponent is not a party to the action, he can be compelled to appear at a deposition examination only by issuance of a subpoena” pursuant to Rule 45. Cleveland v. Palmby, 75 F.R.D. 654, 656 (W.D.Okl.1977). “Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(5)(A).”)Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“Considering Rule 30 as a whole, and affording the words in that rule their plain meaning, as we must, see Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 540, 111 S.Ct. 922, 928, 112 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1991) (“ ‘We give the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning.' ” (quoting Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 123, 110 S.Ct. 456, 458, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989))); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (“As a rule of construction, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are given their plain meaning.”), it is clear that a deposition is the examination under oath by “oral questions” of a party or deponent. In other words, a party who merely appears for a deposition that does not take place has not “been deposed” since he has not been examined by oral questions”)Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey, 8 Pa. D. & C. 420, 420–21 (Com. Pl. 1926) (“The definition of a deposition will be found in 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 848, as follows: “The testimony of a witness reduced to writing, in due form of law, by virtue of a commission or other authority of a competent tribunal, or according to the provisions of some statute law, to be used on the trial of some question of fact in a court of justice”)