Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discovery Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge to review sanctions and summary-judgment motions after conflicting deposition testimony in Roberts v. CRS
Summary
Defense and plaintiffs clashed over whether plaintiff’s counsel coached deposition testimony. The court took motions to strike, sanctions requests and a summary-judgment motion under advisement and will issue a written ruling after reviewing the record and applicable rules.
A dispute over deposition testimony and alleged witness coaching dominated argument in Noriko Roberts v. Commercial Roofing Specialist and related defendants during the March 19 Clayton County State Court motions calendar.
Defense counsel Brian Grantham sought summary judgment and asked the court to strike portions of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. Grantham argued the plaintiff originally testified that only tools from a trailer struck her car and later, after a break in the deposition, changed or clarified that the trailer itself struck her vehicle; Grantham contended the change was the result of coaching by plaintiff counsel.
Plaintiff counsel, represented in the transcript by opposing counsel (defense counsel referred to him as "counsel" in argument), said the plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent and that a clarification during the deposition was a permissible correction. Defense counsel argued the colloquy in the hallway amounted to improper witness coaching in violation of Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 and asked the court to impose sanctions and strike the later testimony.
Why it matters: The court must balance a witness’s right to correct testimony and opposing counsel’s right to a fair discovery process. A finding of inappropriate coaching could prompt sanctions and could affect what testimony is admissible at trial; a ruling for either side could materially alter the defenses available and the viability of claims.
What the court did: The judge declined to rule from the bench and said he would review deposition transcripts, affidavits and the cited professional-conduct rule before issuing a written decision. The court asked counsel to submit supporting documents and said it takes allegations of attorney misconduct seriously and would conduct a careful review.
Key speakers and positions - Brian Grantham (defense counsel) argued summary judgment and moved to strike later deposition testimony, saying plaintiff admitted the earlier, inconsistent account and that counsel improperly influenced the witness after a break in the deposition. - Defense counsel (Michael Warner and others) and the court noted factual inconsistencies in the deposition but differed on whether counsel’s hallway remark crossed the line into improper coaching. - The judge said he would study the record and the rule before ruling and stressed the seriousness of any allegation of witness coaching.
Next steps: The judge will issue a written order after reviewing the deposition transcript pages, the affidavits on the record and the applicable rules of professional conduct and discovery. Counsel should expect a ruling that will govern admissibility of the disputed testimony and any sanctions or further discovery remedies the court may order.
Source: Proceedings, Clayton County State Court motions calendar, March 19, 2025; in-court argument by Brian Grantham and others.
