United States: Using Multiple-Attorney Depositions After Finjan Ruling

Depositions are powerful tools for obtaining sworn out-of-court testimony for use at trial and throughout a case. Depositions are a unique part of the discovery process in that they allow attorneys to examine adverse or third-party witnesses without direct judicial supervision.

The Federal Rules Do Not Specify the Number of Attorneys Who May Question a Witness

Most depositions for cases in federal courts are carried out under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30, which provides general guidelines for the structure and conduct of deposing witnesses during a deposition. For example, this rule generally limits depositions to seven hours unless the court orders otherwise and provides that deponents may move to terminate a deposition if they believe that "it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses."1

However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide little guidance regarding the style of questioning that is permitted during a deposition or the tactics that attorneys may use to get the most out of their time with a witness. Notably, these rules do not limit the number of attorneys that may question a deponent during a deposition.

Because of this, some litigants may choose to question a witness using tag team tactics — having more than one attorney question the witness — to get the most out of their deposition time. However, courts are wary of this approach.

The Northern District of California Dusts Off Decades-Old Case Law and Sets a One-Attorney Rule

More than 30 years ago, in Rockwell International Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Industries Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that two attorneys may depose a witness where there is no evidence of actual abuse of that witness.2 The court reasoned that it "was not abuse per se to have two attorneys rather than one question" the deponent where they he had previously agreed to be deposed by two attorneys.3 In reaching this decision, the court cited another case where it held that the parties had waived their right to object to such questioning.4

Since Rockwell, few courts commented on this precedent until recently, when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Finjan Inc. v.  Cisco Systems Inc., went further and prohibited two-attorney questioning where the parties failed to agree in advance to such questioning.5 There, the defendant attempted to have two attorneys question plaintiff's expert witness—one attorney for each patent-in-suit.6

The plaintiff objected to two-attorney questioning and stopped the deposition when the second attorney attempted to question the witness. The defendant asked the court to compel continuation of the deposition in a joint discovery letter, responding that it was "not aware of any case law or rule preventing questioning by two attorneys under this circumstance."7 The defendant also noted that the plaintiff had previously allowed two attorneys to ask questions during the deposition of a different expert.8

The plaintiff countered that, while no rule prohibited two attorneys from asking questions, it is "customary in [the Northern District of California] for judges to require a single attorney to question a witness at trial,"9 also pointing out that other courts have limited witness examination to a single attorney.10 The plaintiff objected to two-attorney questioning on the grounds that they were not timely informed of the defendant's plan.11

The court reasoned that even though no written rule exists prohibiting two-attorney questioning in depositions in its jurisdiction, it is "typical practice ... for only one attorney to question a witness at a deposition."12 The court tempered its holding by explaining that certain "[c]ircumstances may warrant allowing more than one attorney to ask questions at a deposition."13

For example, the court stated that only one attorney should be permitted to question an opposing party's witness absent extenuating circumstances, such as when an expert witness is being deposed on "clearly distinct claims."14 "However," the court noted, "the distinction between issues is not so clear ... in patent cases ... and a rule that multi-attorney questioning is permitted on 'unrelated' patents is likely to instigate more disputes than it resolves."15

Other Courts Implicitly Limit the Number of Deposing Attorneys

The Finjan holding is not inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit precedent set out in Rockwell regarding multiple attorneys questioning a witness at a deposition. And though few courts have commented on multiple-attorney questioning directly, others have indicated their consistent expectation that only one attorney typically attend a deposition, let alone question the witness.

In fact, in awarding fees to prevailing parties, courts have determined fees for a second attendee at a deposition are not recoverable unless both attorneys provided a "distinct contribution."16

For example, in Goldsmith v. Bagby, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that it was not reasonable to allow attorney's fees for two attorneys attending a deposition where the attorneys did not have distinct roles at that deposition.17

Likewise, in Walker v. Coughlin, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York noted that although "prevailing parties are not barred as a matter of law from receiving fees for sending a second attorney to depositions."18 that those attorneys bear the burden of showing "that each has a distinct responsibility in the case necessitating his presence."19 Instead of completely disallowing the second attorney's fees, the Walker court reduced the total time compensated because of "the relative lack of need demonstrated" for two-attorney questioning.20

Explanation and Justification Should Precede Multiple Attorney Questioning

For attorneys who want to employ multiple-attorney questioning — either as a strategic decision or to help young attorneys gain experience — Finjan (and Rockwell before it) indicate that it is better to ask permission than forgiveness. Attorneys who intend to question a witness with multiple attorneys should inform opposing counsel, and the court, if necessary, beforehand and explain the distinct roles of and specific need for each attorney. Otherwise, courts may disallow important deposition testimony on the front end, or force prevailing parties to eat significant portions of their costs on the back end.


1 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 30(d)(3)(A).

2 See Rockwell Int'l, Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc., 712 F. 2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1983).

3 Id.

4 Id. (citing Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980)).

5 See Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK), Dkt. 354 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2019) (Order on Joint Discovery Letter Brief Re Expert Depositions of Drs. Mitzenmacher, Jaeger, and Orso).

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Id.

9 See e.g., Judge Breyer Guidelines for Civil Jury Trials at 11 ("There can only be one lawyer per witness per party for all purposes, including objections"); Judge White Standing Order for Depositions at 1 ("Each party should designate one attorney to conduct the principal examination of the deponent").

10 See Applied Telematics, Inc. v. Sprint Corp., No. 94-cv-4603, 1995 WL 79237, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1995) ("Therefore, in order to proceed in an effective manner, without harassing the witness, only one attorney at a time shall be designated as the 'voice' of counsel at a deposition" and "Only one attorney for each party shall be permitted to act as counsel during a deposition"); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Compass Bank, No. 04-0766, 2005 WL 8158673, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 7, 2005).

11 Finjan, No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK), Dkt. 354 at *2.

12 Id. 

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id. at *3.

16 See Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co. Inc., No. CV-03-J-1018-S (N.D. Ala. Aug. 2, 2006) at *4 (citing ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 at 432); see also Walker v. Coughlin, 909 F. Supp. 872 (W.D.N.Y. 1995).

17 Goldsmith, No. CV-03-J-1018-S at 4.

18 Walker, 909 F. Supp. 872 at 880 (citing New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir. 1983)).

19 Walker, 909 F. Supp. 872 at 880 (citing Kronfeld v. Transworld Airlines, Inc., 129 F.R.D. 598, 604 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Cf.  Williamsburg Fair Housing Committee v. Ross–Rodney Housing Corp., 599 F.Supp. 509, 518 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (explaining that plaintiffs could be compensated for multiple attorneys' presence at depositions and hearings, since plaintiffs plausibly showed that "when more than one attorney was present, each attorney made a distinct contribution by his presence or participation").

20 Walker, 909 F. Supp. 872 at 880.

Previously published in Law 360.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions