Trial Court Limits Effort By Two Attorneys in Same Firm To Question Multiple Witnesses at Depositions

In the case of Mercado v. UGI Utilities, Inc., No. 2022-CV-5250 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 15, 2026 Nealon, J.), the court addressed the issue of whether multiple, independent interrogations of the same witness at a deposition by separate Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the same firm is permitted.

This appears to be an issue of first impression in terms of any court decision.

According to the Opinion, two lawyers in the same law firm commenced consolidated actions on behalf of three Plaintiffs as a result of a single motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the eruption of a gas pipeline underneath a roadway. For more than three years, those attorneys in the same law firm jointly represented all three Plaintiffs.

Shortly before the first set of discovery depositions began, as an apparent strategy, those lawyers withdrew their appearances for particular Plaintiffs in certain actions and then proceeded to conduct separate examinations of the deponents, thereby prompting objections by defense counsel. The defense attorneys challenged the propriety of independent interrogations by those attorneys and their redundant questioning that prolonged the depositions.

In anticipation of a next round of depositions, the Defendants filed a Motion for a Protective Order seeking to limit the Plaintiffs “to having only one attorney question each witness that is deposed in the matter.”

Judge Terrence R. Nealon
Lackawanna County

In his ruling, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas undertook a detailed analysis of the issue presented.

Judge Nealon generally noted that the Plaintiffs in this matter had identical interests in the consolidated cases. The court noted that both Pa. R.C.P. 223(2) and Pa. R.E. 611(a)(2)-(3) provide trial judges with the discretion to limit the number of attorneys who may represent the same group of parties.  Those Rules also allow a trial court judge to exercise reasonable control over the mode of examining witnesses in order to protect the witnesses from harassment and to avoid the wasting of time.

In his review of other cases that peripherally addressed the issue presented, the court noted that it has been recognized that it is an abuse of discretion to permit attorneys to effectively “tag team” a witness with duplicative participation and interrogation while those attorneys are representing the same interests.

Judge Nealon noted that, for example, under the deposition protocol requested by the Plaintiffs in this matter, a law firm representing a tortfeasor Defendant and a vicariously liable employer in cases of uncontested agency would be entitled to have a second defense lawyer in their firm represent the employer and then have both attorneys conduct independent and separate examination of witnesses even though the tortfeasor and the employer have identical interests. The court noted that allowing such a practice would protract depositions needlessly and cause recurring objections against the repetitive questioning, as was happening in the case before the court here.

Judge Nealon ultimately held that, in light of the two lawyers’ joint representation of all three Plaintiffs for more than three years, and given the complete commonality of interests among the Plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, the Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order would be granted. 

Under the Court's Order, the Plaintiffs were directed to designate a single attorney to examine each deponent on behalf of all of the Plaintiffs during future depositions.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image: Photo by Werner Pfennig on www.pexels.com.