A party may be sanctioned for
failing to answer a question. M.R.C.P.
37(a)(2) ("If a deponent fails to answer a question ..., the discovering
party may move for an order compelling an answer .... When taking a deposition
on oral examination, the proponent of the question may complete or adjourn the
examination before he applies for an order."); M.R.C.P. 37(a)(4) ("If
the motion is granted, the court shall, after opportunity for hearing, require
the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or
attorney advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the
reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, including attorney's fees,
unless the court finds that the opposition to the motion was substantially
justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.");
see also 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller et al., Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2116 (3d ed. 2010) ("An alternative method by which a court
ruling upon the propriety of the examination may be obtained is by refusal of
the witness to answer particular questions, thus provoking a motion under Rule
37(a) to compel an answer.... Although there is thus a substantial preference
for requiring that deponents apply to the court for protection rather than
simply refusing to answer questions, it is to be hoped that the courts will
take a realistic view of the conduct of depositions rather than foreclose
deponents' objections in response to motions to compel answers.").
Except for the purpose of
preserving a privilege, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
for counsel to instruct a witness not to answer a question at a deposition,
even if the question is indeed objectionable. See M.R.C.P. 30. Objections
should be made at the time of the deposition and "shall be noted upon the
transcription or recording. Evidence objected to shall be taken subject to the
objections." M.R.C.P. 30(c) ; see also Banks v. Office of the Senate
Sergeant–at–Arms , 222 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2004) ; Ethicon Endo–Surgery
v. U.S. Surgical Corp. , 160 F.R.D. 98, 99 (S.D. Ohio 1995).
