Mazzeo vs. Gibbons Suit Makes Us Fall In Love With A Judge

United States Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen issued a bench slap in the Chrissy Mazzeo case scolding attorneys Walter Cannon and Robert Kossack, and it's a doosey.

Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order prohibiting Cannon from "making improper speaking, argumentative, suggestive, and coaching objections during depositions." The opinion started out with Judge Leen expressing her frustration with the motion being filed on an "emergency" basis:

I am not the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do. Nevertheless, the motion remains on my docket until an order is entered, and Plaintiff’s counsel seeks sanctions.

When you get a quote like that early in the opinion, you know you're in for a treat. Her Honor went on to summarize the back-and-forth motions practice engaged in by the attorneys, wherein they accused each other of violating various procedural and ethical rules. Leen finally gave up and decided to give a law student a glimpse at his future:

To ensure that reading the 185 pages of these exchanges was not a complete waste of time, I assigned this motion to a law student extern to prepare a legal memorandum to further his education. In a short period of time he was able to prepare a well-written, concise memo which identified a large number of state and federal cases throughout the country articulating the standards for making deposition objections and identifying improper conduct for which lawyers have been admonished or sanctioned. He correctly concluded that both lawyers engaged in misconduct which violated Rule 30(c)(2).

Then she dropped the hammer:

The exchanges related in excruciating, repetitive detail in the moving and responsive papers and their attachments were painful to read. If I was an elementary school teacher instead of a judge I would require both counsel to write the following clearly established legal rules on a blackboard 500 times:

"I will not make speaking, coaching, suggestive objections which violate Rule 30(c)(2). I am an experienced lawyer and know that objections must be concise, non- argumentative and non-suggestive. I understand that the purpose of a deposition is to find out what the witness thinks, saw, heard or did. I know that lawyers are not supposed to coach or change the witness’s own words to form a legally convenient record. I know I am prohibited from frustrating or impeding the fair examination of a deponent during the deposition. I know that constant objections and unnecessary remarks are unwarranted and frustrate opposing counsel’s right to fair examination. I know that speaking objections such as “if you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” and “do you understand the question” are designed to coach the witness and are improper. I also know that counsel’s interjection that he or she does not understand the question is not a proper objection, and that if a witness needs clarification of a question, the witness may ask for the clarification."

Hear that boys and girls? “If you remember,” “if you know,” “don’t guess,” “you’ve answered the question,” “do you understand the question” ... all improper objections in a depo!

As for Judge Leen's ultimate decision ... lashes all around:

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion” (Dkt. #218) is GRANTED to the extent that Mr. Kossack and Mr. Cannon are admonished. Sanctions in the form of memorializing their misconduct in this order are imposed.

Oh, and ATL, the ABA Journal, and WWL will publish it as well. We heart you, Judge Leen.

(Full Opinion - PDF)