I think the TMLC has got a good point here: A scientist shouldn't need to have a lawyer present at a deposition about science matters -- that's simply silly, IMHO. Methinks maybe DI has shot itself in the foot here....
Thanks for the interesting post, Patrick!
DI is a Moonie organization. ID shoots itself in the foot when it associated with Moonies and radical Muslims. And when it tries to get an ideology taught in public schools before it has an actual research program (their words, not mine).
I think the TMLC has got a good point here: A scientist shouldn't need to have a lawyer present at a deposition about science matters -- that's simply silly, IMHO.
There is a legal term for the Thomas More Center's attorney's claim that there is a conflict of interest in having personal counsel sitting in with the deponent. It is what is known, in the legal profession, as "a load of crap."
In civil matters, the scope of the matter which is discoverable in a deposition is very broad; basically, so long as it is not privileged and could somehow lead to admissible evidence, it is fair game. BUT, and this is the important point, if personal counsel objects and there is any dispute as to whether the question has to be answered or not, it is a simple matter to make a motion to compel discovery and get the judge to order the expert to answer the question. If there is no good basis for the objection, or it is out of bounds, then the judge will direct the expert to answer the question. Otherwise, if the objection is valid, then the expert shouldn't have to answer the question, even if the Thomas More people want him to.
That being said, I don't understand why these folks need personal counsel, unless the DI is afraid that they may say something which can be used against DI. What that may be would be speculation...
Thank you both for the pings!