Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories

United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
299 F.R.D. 595 (2014)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An attorney's deposition conduct that impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent—including witness coaching, making excessive and unnecessary objections, and using vague 'form' objections to facilitate obstruction—is sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) and a court's inherent power.

Facts:

Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) produced and sold a baby formula product.
A minor child, J.M.K., consumed baby formula produced by Abbott.
After consuming the formula, J.M.K. allegedly suffered permanent brain damage.
Security National Bank (SNB), acting as conservator for J.M.K., alleged the formula was contaminated with a dangerous bacteria, enterobacter sakazakii.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Security National Bank (SNB) sued Defendant Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) in federal district court, alleging product liability claims.
During pre-trial discovery, SNB's lawyers deposed Abbott employees, including Bridget Barrett-Reis and Sharon Bottock.
Counsel for Abbott defended the depositions.
The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the presiding judge reviewed the deposition transcripts.
A jury returned a verdict in favor of Abbott on all claims, and judgment was entered.
After the trial, the judge issued a 'sua sponte' (on its own initiative) order requiring Counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for a pattern of obstructive conduct during the depositions.
Counsel responded to the order to show cause, and the court held a telephonic hearing on the sanctions issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a lawyer's deposition conduct, which includes making hundreds of unspecified 'form' objections, repeatedly interjecting in a manner that coaches the witness, and excessively interrupting the proceedings, impede, delay, or frustrate the fair examination of a deponent, thereby warranting sanctions?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Mark W. Bennett

Yes, a lawyer's deposition conduct warrants sanctions when it impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a deponent. The court found Counsel's conduct sanctionable for three primary reasons. First, Counsel engaged in pervasive witness coaching by making suggestive objections (e.g., 'vague and ambiguous,' 'hypothetical'), which prompted witnesses to refuse to answer or demand clarification for otherwise clear questions. Counsel also improperly instructed witnesses to answer only 'if you know,' rephrased questions, and sometimes supplied the answer. Second, Counsel's interruptions were grossly excessive, with hundreds of unnecessary objections and comments that unreasonably prolonged the depositions. Third, while not sanctioning for the use of unspecified 'form' objections alone due to a split in authority, the court held that they are improper because they fail to specify the error and were used to facilitate the witness coaching and interruptions. Rather than a monetary penalty, the court imposed an educational sanction requiring Counsel to produce a training video for their law firm explaining the impropriety of such conduct.

Analysis:

This opinion is significant for its direct condemnation of common but improper deposition tactics that many litigators have come to accept as standard practice. It clarifies that unspecified 'form' objections are improper and serve no valid purpose, putting practitioners on notice that such objections may invite sanctions. The court's decision to impose a non-monetary, educational sanction (a mandatory training video) highlights a judicial focus on deterrence and systemic correction of attorney behavior rather than mere punishment. This case serves as a strong warning that courts may proactively police discovery abuse and that a lawyer's reputation for civility and skill will not excuse obstructionist conduct.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Security National Bank of Sioux City v. Abbott Laboratories (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature