TexasCHLforum.com

Yes the attorneys are sworn officers of the court. But that is not why the issue of a room used for a deposition being considered an extension of the court raises its head.

In the deposition you have a court reporter taking sworn testimony on a specific action and usually under subpoena to appear. Objections are heard and the proceedings can be stopped for a ruling from a judge in whose court the action is Docketed. In fact a judge may even be present at the location in important depos. In that case the judge is presiding over his court business. Certainly then the room is utilized by the court. Remember, court doesn't just mean a physical location. The judge can hold court in my garage if he sees fit and he and that garage is the court.


The question is...can or is the lawyers conference room where the depo takes place considered an office utilized by the court during and for the purpose of taking sworn admissible testimony? Would the presense of a gun carrying person in the room be coercive to that testimony?


And if so then the depo room would be off limits.

Tex

As of this post, there is ZERO published caselaw on the subject. So I am inclined to agree with Tex here that the deposition is an extension of the courtroom. Easier to stay out of trouble than get out of trouble.

As a lawyer of almost 28 years and over a thousand depositions, I respectfully disagree.

RossA wrote:As a lawyer of almost 28 years and over a thousand depositions, I respectfully disagree.

I will certainly bow to your experience. Maybe not. It just seems that it would make sense. However I'm sure the legislators were not thinking of lawyers conference rooms when they wrote the rule. So it may be nothing to concern ourselves with.

Tex

Respectfully, I am not convinced by anything other than a valid legal argument that the deposition is somehow not an "office utilized by a court."

Habibi30.06 wrote:Respectfully, I am not convinced by anything other than a valid legal argument that the deposition is somehow not an "office utilized by a court."

Is the AG opinion a valid legal argument?

The premises of a "government court or office utilized by the court" means a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0047.pdf

That AG opinion reads like it was written by a politician, or a lawyer, or both.
Oh, wait, it was.

Habibi30.06 wrote:Let's say you are involved in a civil lawsuit (unrelated to guns), and you plan to appear at an oral deposition examination at an office building (non governmental premises). You have rented the room. It is a private meeting that you scheduled. There is no 30.06 or 30.07 sign posted anywhere. The deposition was scheduled properly according to Tex. R. Civ. P. 199.1 et seq. You know that the opposing party (let's call him Bob) is showing up and he is going to be not happy to be there. You are concerned about safety given Bob's mental state and you know him to be a fan of guns.

3 questions:
1. Is it illegal for Bob to carry either openly or concealed at the deposition?

No.

Habibi30.06 wrote:2. Would it be sufficient to instruct Bob, upon entry, to leave any firearms he might be carrying in his car?

Sufficient for what? If Bob cares about the law he will comply. If he doesn't he wont.

Habibi30.06 wrote:3. What if you instructed Bob in the notice of deposition that firearms will be prohibited at the deposition?

See my answer to 2.

This is a classic case of the difference between law abiders and law breakers. If you have any concerns at all about Bob, then you need to be armed and assume that he is. If he is a law breaker, no signs, warnings, requests or demands are going to change what he does.

Habibi30.06 wrote:Respectfully, I am not convinced by anything other than a valid legal argument that the deposition is somehow not an "office utilized by a court."

Depositions take place in lawyers offices every day. There is no requirement for a deposition to take place in a court office. The only requirement is that a Certified Court Reporter has to be in attendance.

casp625 wrote:

Habibi30.06 wrote:Respectfully, I am not convinced by anything other than a valid legal argument that the deposition is somehow not an "office utilized by a court."

Is the AG opinion a valid legal argument?

The premises of a "government court or office utilized by the court" means a government courtroom or those offices essential to the operation of the government court.
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0047.pdf

Nice research and I mean that sincerely. I read through Ken Paxton's AG opinion hoping and wishing to find an answer to my question about whether a private office deposition qualifies as an "office utilized by a court." Here is how the AG defined "offices utilized by a court":

"the premises of an office utilized by the court generally means a building or portion of a building that is a place where the business of a government court is transacted."

A deposition is categorically within the scope of "the business of a court." The entire point of the deposition is to assist a party with gathering discoverable information in a court proceeding. The deposition is conducted according to courtroom procedure and is policed by the judge before or after it happens, or both. An office of deposition is also "essential to the operation of a government court" because it is where parties engage in the discovery of evidence to be used at a trial. Based on this interpretation, a deponent is pushing his/her luck if he/she shows up packing heat and is risking a felony charge.

Note that AG opinions are not legally binding on courts and are merely "advisory" in nature. So a court could arrive at a different interpretation but I still don't see how that is possible based on the responses in this thread.