Matt Yas, The Daily Record Newswire
Attorneys read through enough legal transcripts to recognize a gem when they see one. This month, they need look no further than Cuyahoga, Ohio.
Bravo, New York Times, for launching Verbatim, a new service that has seemingly done the impossible: take legal transcripts potentially dripping with tension and acrimony, film them with actors, and yield video as entertaining as anything you’ll find on HBO — or, more apropos to the premier installment, Comedy Central.
While the aim of the series clearly is to target the YouTube generation by posting the standard, attention-grabbing five-minute video shorts, it provides an equally rich repository of entertainment for attorneys by saving them the trouble of even a web search for “refreshingly entertaining deposition.”
The first one is a dandy: a deposition involving the Cuyahoga County Recorder’s Office’s refusal to hand out electronic documents, instead telling people they had to pay $2 per page. The good part comes when the plaintiff’s attorney introduces the seemingly non-issue of the office’s photocopier:
Plaintiff’s lawyer: During your tenure in the computer department at the Recorder’s Office, has the Recorder’s Office had photocopying machines?
Deponent’s lawyer: Objection.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Any photocopying machine?
Deponent: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Let me be — let me make sure I understand your question. You don’t have an understanding of what a photocopying machine is?
Deponent: No. I want to make sure that I answer your question correctly. … When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?
Deponent: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Well, we’ll find out. If you can say yes or no, I can do follow-ups, but it seems — if you really don’t know in an office setting what a photocopying machine is, I’d like the Ohio Supreme Court to hear you say so.
Deponent: I just want to make sure I answer your question correctly.
Deponent’s lawyer: There’s different types of photocopiers, Dave.
Deponent: I’m sorry. I didn’t know what that meant. I understand that there are photocopying machines, and there are different types of them just like —
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Are there any in the Recorder’s Office?
Deponent: There are different cars. Some of them run under gas power, some of them under electric power, and I’m asking if you could help me out by explaining what you mean by “photocopying machines” —
Plaintiff’s lawyer: That’s a great point.
Deponent: — instead of trying to make me feel stupid.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: If you feel stupid, it’s not because I’m making you feel that way.
Deponent’s lawyer: Objection.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: All right. But you have general understanding that people have used the term “photocopy” within the Recorder’s Office in terms of something that could be done there; is that true?
Deponent: I’m sure it’s been used. I don’t remember a specific instance.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: And is it fair to say that it’s been used in terms of being able to copy one piece of paper onto another piece of paper using a machine? No? Not sure of that?
Deponent: I’m sure it’s been used. I don’t recall a specific instance in which it was.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: Have you ever — do you have machines there where I can put in a paper document, push a button or two, and out will come copies of that paper document, also on paper? Do you have such a machine?
Deponent: Yes, sir.
Plaintiff’s lawyer: What do you call that machine?
Deponent: Xerox.
