30.06 or 30.07 at civil Deposition??

[Habibi30.06]

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?
2. Would it be sufficient to instruct Bob, upon entry, to leave any firearms he might be carrying in his car?
3. What if you instructed Bob in the notice of deposition that firearms will be prohibited at the deposition?

Thanks in advance and Happy New Year.

[The Annoyed Man]

With all due respect......

Seems to me that if you are renting the room, then the property is under your control. If the property is under your control, you can post a 30.06 and 30.07 signs..............which will have exactly ZERO force of law if the other party does not have a license. But whether or not he does have a license to carry, if he shows up with criminal intent, bent on committing mayhem, your sign isn't going to even slow him down. However, the fact is that if he DOES have a license, you are FAR LESS likely to have a reason to fear him than someone who is not licensed. Read the stats. A person with a CHL is actually a much safer person to be around: https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/r ... vrates.htm.

If your lawsuit is just, and if you deal justly with the other party, and if you are respectful of his legal rights in the process, and your claim is not frivolous or abusive, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

And last point....... EVERYONE on this forum is a fan of guns. That doesn't mean that we don't know how to behave at a deposition. If the other party were a fan of prostitutes, would you be afraid that he would show up naked and aroused? The fact that he is a gun owner is not relevant to whether you are in danger. You have concerns about his mental state. Are you the cause of his mental state? Did you tick him off with your own behavior?

But even if you did, that is not a reason to assume that he is going to be in some kind of a murderous rage just because he likes guns.

Hope you're not trolling the forum.

[Habibi30.06]

Thanks sir for the speedy response! To respond to your comment: no offense or disrespect to any person's dignity or legal rights was meant. I hope this clarifies.

The hypothetical was designed to explore the issues where there were genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state. Of course you are correct in saying that Bob can be a scofflaw and a sign isn't going to protect against him causing harm.

The issue I am interested in mostly is whether the deposition location is "an office utilized by a court" (Tex. Penal Code Sec. 46.03(a)(3)) where a person is prohibited from carrying under any circumstances -- especially considering that the lawyer who is managing the deposition is an officer of the court and the deposition is being conducted according to the court's procedures (e.g. the notice of deposition bears the style of the case containing the court name).

I appreciate feedback from the forum members on this subject.

[cbunt1]

Well, I answered your cross-post before I saw this one. Like TAM, I hope you are not trolling the forum.

But, I think your question is legitimate whether your concerns are warranted or not (I don't know the situation of course.)

With the additional background you give here, I actually feel more certain in my non-lawyer response: A private deposition, in a private (rented) location, outside a courtroom or courthouse most certainly does NOT rise to the definition of "court offices" as I read the law. Even if the deposition is court-ordered, it is still a meeting/discussion between consenting individuals.

It would be no different than the same parties having lunch at Chili's and discussing the case.

I also agree with TAM's assessment that as the one renting the facility, you would be entitled to invoke PC 30.06 and/or 30.07 in either written or oral form, and that to do so would likely be pointless: If the other party is willing to comply, then they weren't a risk to you in the first place, and if they are truly a risk to you, PC 30.06/30.07 would do no significant good.

[Pawpaw]

If there truly are "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", then arrange for a LEO to be there. It would be money well spent.

If it's not worth the money, then there weren't "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", but merely unfounded fears.

[RHenriksen]

If there truly are "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", then arrange for a LEO to be there. It would be money well spent.

If it's not worth the money, then there weren't "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", but merely unfounded fears.

That's an excellent answer.

[JALLEN]

For those who have never been in one of these procedures, it is a question and answer session, one person is answering questions, under oath, much like a trial setting except there is no judge, bailiff, clerk, etc., just parties, lawyers and the deponent who might be one of the parties, a non-party percipient witness, or an expert witness, and a court reporter. Most depositions are conducted in the conference room of the attorney who called the deposition, or sometimes in a room furnished by the court reporting firm, or other suitable location agreeable in the circumstances. I've never heard of one being conducted on court premises but know of no rule precluding that.

Feelings frequently run quite high. Raised voices, violent disagreements, manhood challenges and proving, offers to take it outside, whip each others body parts, are not unheard of. There have been instances, very rare, where a party has pulled a gun and shot others, or left returned with a gun. Unlike a court, there is no authority figure to enforce decorum. Normally, the attorneys restrain their respective parties but not always, and it isn't unheard of for the attorneys to be the participants. Google a youtube of recently departed Joe Jamail at a deposition, but be warned the language is most undignified, actually childish as far as I am concerned.

All my experience was in California of course, where having a firearm legally is nearly impossible, and that never happened at any depositions I participated in. I did have a case where the parties replayed the OK Corral on the disputed property while the case was pending. Luckily, they were all lousy shots.

Most of us realize, and accept, the notion that a weapon isn't for use on people you may be mad at, but only on those who are threatening physical harm, etc. but as we know from police reports, that isn't a universally held view. For this reason, I consider carrying at a depo a real bad idea.

[Mike S]

If there truly are "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", then arrange for a LEO to be there. It would be money well spent.

If it's not worth the money, then there weren't "genuine concerns about the deponent's mental state", but merely unfounded fears.

Habibi,
Pawpaw's reply is exactly the first thing that came to my mind when reading your question.

I'd also suggest consulting with the officer-of-the-court lawyer that you say will be managing the deposition. He likely won't have a clear answer, but can refer to the Atty General opinion # KP-0047 (its on the DPS' website, under Legislation). From my non-lawyer reading of it, the prohibition is only for the courtroom, and those court offices that are essential to the court's operation (a determination that aught to come from the court itself, as to whether the 'rented room' is 'essential to the court's operation).

Not a dig, but I'd also suggest being a little clearer when you post hypothetical questions; such as who is the 'you' referred to. (I'm not well versed in the civil courts, so the parts implied may make sense if you had just PM'd Mr Cotton, who I understand IS a civil attorney). This would frame the question differently if its me, a private citizen, renting the room (as the above Atty General decision would likely not apply, but as others have said above, 30.06/30.07 might apply) versus 'the court' or a government entity renting the room.

Also, Jallen brings another perspective in that there are multiple possibles as to who is actually 'renting' the room.

Again, not a poke, just hopefully constructive feedback.

[thetexan]

I'm wondering if the room in which the deposition is taking place would be considered an extension of the court since there will be an assigned court reporter there acting with court authority, with swearing authority, and having placed deponents under oath. If that is true, as such would not weapons be prohibited under 46.03a3?

tex

[Habibi30.06]

Thanks fellows for all of the very constructive feedback and different perspectives.

I am grateful for everyone's help on this issue - as a practical matter it does seem pretty clear that the person who requested the deposition / rented the room can simply instruct all parties to leave their weapons behind. I still wonder about whether weapons are categorically prohibited at the deposition (let's say for self defense purposes) - absent court authorization to the contrary.

I keep getting hung up on this issue of "officers of the court" being present. For one thing, the lawyer taking the deposition is an "officer of the court" - and as Tex astutely points out - the Courtroom reporter and videographer are also both "officers of the court." That means there are at least 3 officers of the court present, not including the deponent's (Bob's) lawyer if she is present. The only reason the deposition is taking place is because the parties are authorized to do so under the Court's authority. The Court is also overseeing whatever happens in the deposition - if one party acts up for instance or becomes noncompliant - some courts have procedures to literally call a judicial hotline and get a ruling or instruction immediately. All other courts police the proceedings afterwards in the courtroom if a party complains about misconduct.

Does the fact that at least three officers of the court are operating in their official capacity in this office, and the fact that it is hosting a proceeding occurring under the court's aegis transform the office space into an "office utilized by the court"?

Many thanks.

PS A word about "consenting individuals" comment above - a deposition is frequently involuntary for the deponent. For the purpose of our hypothetical, the Deponent is legally required to appear and give testimony because they are the recipient of a subpoena - that is to say - under penalty of court sanctions. I suppose on some level the deponent has to choose to show up, but the choice is coerced.

[RossA]

I wish I had a dollar for every deposition I have carried a concealed handgun into.

[Keith B]

Thanks fellows for all of the very constructive feedback and different perspectives.

I am grateful for everyone's help on this issue - as a practical matter it does seem pretty clear that the person who requested the deposition / rented the room can simply instruct all parties to leave their weapons behind. I still wonder about whether weapons are categorically prohibited at the deposition (let's say for self defense purposes) - absent court authorization to the contrary.

I keep getting hung up on this issue of "officers of the court" being present. For one thing, the lawyer taking the deposition is an "officer of the court" - and as Tex astutely points out - the Courtroom reporter and videographer are also both "officers of the court." That means there are at least 3 officers of the court present, not including the deponent's (Bob's) lawyer if she is present. The only reason the deposition is taking place is because the parties are authorized to do so under the Court's authority. The Court is also overseeing whatever happens in the deposition - if one party acts up for instance or becomes noncompliant - some courts have procedures to literally call a judicial hotline and get a ruling or instruction immediately. All other courts police the proceedings afterwards in the courtroom if a party complains about misconduct.

Does the fact that at least three officers of the court are operating in their official capacity in this office, and the fact that it is hosting a proceeding occurring under the court's aegis transform the office space into an "office utilized by the court"?

Many thanks.

PS A word about "consenting individuals" comment above - a deposition is frequently involuntary for the deponent. For the purpose of our hypothetical, the Deponent is legally required to appear and give testimony because they are the recipient of a subpoena - that is to say - under penalty of court sanctions. I suppose on some level the deponent has to choose to show up, but the choice is coerced.

It's 'offices' of the court, not 'officers'. TPC 46.03 states that a CHL (LTC) holder cannot carry in offices of the court. The only think it says about an 'officer' of the court is that they can carry if they are in their official capacity. I would not think a location where a deposition would be turned into an 'office' of the court. I have seen many depositions taken in a lawyer's office and even in a restaurant where the lawyer met the person. I can guarantee that Denny's is not an office of the court, even if the Judge shows up there. LOL

[The Annoyed Man]

I am not a lawyer and cannot speak authoritatively to Texas law, and J ALLEN can confirm or deny my recollection of California law, but that recollection is that under California law, an attorney involved in a particular litigation is considered an "officer of the court" within the context of that litigation........whereas, for instance, an LEO might be considered a "friend of the court". I'm not sure where I heard that. I worked for 9 years at Daily Journal Corporation in Los Angeles (J ALLEN is undoubtedly familiar with that company), and I may have overheard one of the attorney/editors on staff say something like that. But again, my recollection may be totally wrong.

In any case, if the above were to have any validity, then if a given attorney appearing at a deposition is considered to be "an officer of the court", then it goes without saying that any attorney at that deposition is an officer of the court. Also, it seems unlikely to me that the mere presence of an officer of the court automatically converts his/her location into an extension of the court - thereby requiring all people to be disarmed in his/her presence - most particularly when the opposing counsel is paying for the rental of an "off-court" facility. And regardless of whether my above speculation about the status of "officer of the court", I am pretty sure that the rights of the person in control of the property take precedence over the status of another party representing a court.

Renting an office or conference room for the purpose of conduction a deposition in a "neutral" location automatically confers control over what happens in that place to the person/entity that is paying for it. That entity's rights of control do not vanish because someone in authority arrives - at the invitation of the person in control of the property.

[OneGun]

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?
2. Would it be sufficient to instruct Bob, upon entry, to leave any firearms he might be carrying in his car?
3. What if you instructed Bob in the notice of deposition that firearms will be prohibited at the deposition?

Thanks in advance and Happy New Year.

I have given about 15-20 depositions before, three in the last two months. So, while not I am not a lawyer, I do have some insight based on observations. Since you do not state that you actually in a civil lawsuit and will be attending a deposition, I would keep the following in mind:

(1) A place where a deposition is taking place is treated like an extension of the courtroom. While the hosting law firm may provide amenities like coffee, snacks, etc., the location is treated like the actual courtroom. I would not treat it any other way. Be respectful as if the judge were present.

(2) If you are concerned in anyway about Bob's behavior, you should video tape the deposition since the video can be admitted as evidence. This way you can capture Boob's bad behavior to show to a jury. It can also assist in getting a quick settlement.

(3) If you are concerned about your physical safety, then hold the deposition at the courthouse and have a bailiff or deputy standing by. Alternatively, retain private security to attend the deposition. Under no circumstance, should be as a party to a litigation also act in a dual role as security. You could be accused of having a conflict of interest if you harm Boob.

[Habibi30.06]

It's 'offices' of the court, not 'officers'. TPC 46.03 states that a CHL (LTC) holder cannot carry in offices of the court. The only think it says about an 'officer' of the court is that they can carry if they are in their official capacity. I would not think a location where a deposition would be turned into an 'office' of the court. I have seen many depositions taken in a lawyer's office and even in a restaurant where the lawyer met the person. I can guarantee that Denny's is not an office of the court, even if the Judge shows up there. LOL

The statute says "offices utilized by the court." The question is whether the deposition locale is an office being "utilized" by the court.