It IS very interesting, but I disagree she is a Plaintiffs witness.
If she is testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case, why, instead of sending her a subpoena, don't they just ask her for the documents? and take a written statement from her?
Perhaps we are confusing terms here. The Plaintiffs have noticed her deposition and prepared a subpoena for her records relating to "your work on the Freeh Investigation or the Freeh report." That means they want to know what she knows, not that she is a Plaintiff's witness.
I am guessing, from her prior association with Freeh in the FBI, that she worked on the report. Given her lofty attainments at the Bureau, my guess is she was a (if not the) primary author of the report. My guess is that while the Plaintiffs hope they can obtain information from her which helps their case, she is a witness listed by
It IS very interesting, but I disagree she is a Plaintiffs witness.
If she is testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case, why, instead of sending her a subpoena, don't they just ask her for the documents? and take a written statement from her?
Perhaps we are confusing terms here. The Plaintiffs have noticed her deposition and prepared a subpoena for her records relating to "your work on the Freeh Investigation or the Freeh report." That means they want to know what she knows, not that she is a Plaintiff's witness.
I am guessing, from her prior association with Freeh in the FBI, that she worked on the report. Given her lofty attainments at the Bureau, my guess is she was a (if not the) primary author of the report. My guess is that while the Plaintiffs hope they can obtain information from her which helps their case, she is a witness listed by the DEFENSE, and everyone thinks her testimony, if believed, will help the defense.
It is possible I am wrong, and some hidden deal has taken place, or that they will turn her using the evidence they have, but absent some evidence of that, on this record, it is most likely she is a DEFENSE witness and they are taking her testimony to prepare for what she might say at trial.
The Plaintiffs don't depose their own witnesses, generally speaking. They depose the defense witnesses.
All that said, it is fun to imagine the questioning in a depo like this. "As to Fact A, what is the support in the records of the investigation for this fact?" List every document. Ask questions about every document.
"Any other documents which might have a bearing on whether Fact A is true?" Start listing any doc from the source materials which suggests it might not be true. Get her argument on the record as to each one, showing why she thinks it does not tend to show the falsity of Fact A.
Are you aware of information from ANY source which might conceivably cast doubt on Fact A, whether in the source documents or not?
"How did you rule out the existence of counter evidence, given your lack of subpoena power?"
Then start showing her what you have. (It will be painful for everyone involved. The receptionist at the desk sitting 100 feet away from the conference room where this depo is held will have a headache when this depo is over.)
If there is convincing counter-evidence for Fact A, which was not recited in your report, then it is possible that Fact A is false? Explain every effort you made to find such counter-evidence?"
Here is my question. She will spend hundreds of hours preparing for and giving this deposition. Who pays for her time? For the Love of God, it is not PennState, is it? We are not using general revenues of the University to pay this woman, are we?
the DEFENSE, and everyone thinks her testimony, if believed, will help the defense.
It is possible I am wrong, and some hidden deal has taken place, or that they will turn her using the evidence they have, but absent some evidence of that, on this record, it is most likely she is a DEFENSE witness and they are taking her testimony to prepare for what she might say at trial.
The Plaintiffs don't depose their own witnesses, generally speaking. They depose the defense witnesses.
All that said, it is fun to imagine the questioning in a depo like this. "As to Fact A, what is the support in the records of the investigation for this fact?" List every document. Ask questions about every document.
"Any other documents which might have a bearing on whether Fact A is true?" Start listing any doc from the source materials which suggests it might not be true. Get her argument on the record as to each one, showing why she thinks it does not tend to show the falsity of Fact A.
Are you aware of information from ANY source which might conceivably cast doubt on Fact A, whether in the source documents or not?
"How did you rule out the existence of counter evidence, given your lack of subpoena power?"
Then start showing her what you have. (It will be painful for everyone involved. The receptionist at the desk sitting 100 feet away from the conference room where this depo is held will have a headache when this depo is over.)
If there is convincing counter-evidence for Fact A, which was not recited in your report, then it is possible that Fact A is false? Explain every effort you made to find such counter-evidence?"
