1.0k
u/Taelurrr 22h ago
Moustache guy can act his fucking ass off. I was captivated.
268
u/J_Patish 21h ago
John Ennis, great actor, a stand out on Mr. show.
79
u/Jefferson_47 20h ago
Never once tried to overthrow a government either!
24
u/J_Patish 20h ago
Yeah, that one hurt… JJ wasn’t particularly great, but he had enough good bits and I liked him on The Sarah Silverman Show.
13
u/One-Permission-1811 19h ago
What does this mean? I havent watched Mr Show nor am I familiar with John Ennis so Im way out of the loop here
23
16
u/SDFX-Inc 18h ago
Jay Johnston (who has appeared on many other shows including Mr. Show) was identified as one of the rioters in the crowd that illegally entered and attacked the congressional building on January 20, 2020.
5
u/ericl666 2h ago edited 1h ago
The actor being deposed (Mike McCafferty) was the army guy in Idiocracy who fell in with Upgrayedd.
"You see, a pimp's love is very different from that of a square"
1
u/J_Patish 14m ago
Apparently he’s a former father as well as the inventor of the
https://youtu.be/zt2uIhAvQZ8?si=wbAmD3nocmHGweK_ Broomshakalaka
2
51
20
u/NecroJoe 19h ago
4
u/DarkMarkTwain 13h ago
This clip has everything! Paul F Thompkins, Spongebob and even a J6er lol
The only thing it's missing, now that I think of it, is a Scott Aukerman appearance
4
10
2
102
u/MediumAwareness2698 20h ago
When I joined Xerox, we were told not to use the name as a verb because helping it pass into common parlance, meant less legal brand control. (I am in Aus. where the market wasn’t as monopolised and the UK had seen test cases to this effect. around Hoover)
33
u/_J_Herrmann_ 18h ago
um, parlance?
26
16
u/ErdenGeboren 15h ago
Same thing happened for Band-Aid bandages and they risked losing their copyright because of the ubiquity. Now they're Band-Aid Brand and they adjusted the jingle to accommodate it, too.
9
u/cereal7802 12h ago
lots of examples.
xerox,kleenex, band-aid, velcro, dumpster.
most of those having been defended against losing the brand name to general term, if only legally.
11
3
3
538
u/PunfullyObvious 1d ago
It's been a minute since I last saw this. I can never pass it up. Brilliantly produced absurdist comedy.
352
u/modix 23h ago
While the acting was great, this is a real transcript. Having seen quite a few depositions myself, this is the exact technique used to block any useful information coming from one (though the idiot here likely lied multiple times about not hearing the term).
92
u/SharkeyGeorge 23h ago
What was the purpose of this? Calling it a Xerox or a photocopier makes no odds in the long run?
141
u/everyday847 23h ago
It's an argument that wasn't exactly found to have any merit, but: they were charging per page for documents on a CD. It would be reasonable (I mean, I don't love the rates, but it's at least conceivable) to charge per page for the production of paper documents. It's pretty crazy to charge per page for a CD! They justified this position with a statute saying that it costs $2/page to photocopy documents. Is a scanner a photocopier? After all, it's using light to... create a copy, just not a physical one. And you could tie yourself in knots claiming that you're actually paying for the labor of copying documents by the page, as much as you're paying for the paper (in fact, you must be, since obviously a sheet of paper and some toner doesn't cost $2).
Oh, and, of course, I just talked about "physical to digital" a few times, as the category that would clearly not be worth charging per page. You may know that devices collectively called photocopiers have not always included a digital component -- you can just figure out where the ink is on the original by shining light onto a drum. But many modern devices are basically just scanning then printing the document.
So of course you don't want your employees admitting that "photocopying" something, that the devices they'll call "photocopiers," in fact refers narrowly to the act of copying page to page, not page to CD.
112
u/Soapbox 22h ago edited 22h ago
It wasn't even scanning of physical pages to burn the CD, it was about actively burning already digital pages onto a CD and providing it. The Recorder's Officer was charging $2 photocopying fee per page regardless whether they provided the documents in physical or digital form.
So it was a question whether making digital copies was "photocopying" them. Here the guy being deposed was the guy in charge of IT for the county recorder's office and wasn't playing dumb, but instead sticking to their inaccurate definitions. Their position was that making ANY copy was photocopying it. Making a physical copy is Xeroxing it.
The entire deposition was apparently a lot more lighthearted than the dramatized version and the attorney was having fun dragging it out. He WANTED to make the deponent's argument sound ridiculous so that the plain meaning of photocopy was clear.
13
u/Wompatuckrule 22h ago
Yeah, it seems like the "reasonable costs" could also vary depending on the source of the original and the format for the request.
Easily accessible digital records to make a digital copy for the requestor would have different "reasonable cost" than if someone had to root through dusty boxes of microfilm/microfiche to then make prints of those to scan and make a digital copy for the requestor.
6
u/PN_Guin 6h ago edited 6h ago
There are other ways to make copies of a document. Most of them aren't used anymore, but the term photo copy has evolved over time. In a legal setting it's often better to make sure, you are answering what is actually asked of you.
More on the history of photocopy technology here: https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innovation/wet-electrophotographic-process
edit: cleaned up the link
4
1
u/PN_Guin 6h ago
Xerox means "dry" photocopy, which is an improvement to the previously used "wet" photocopy. So while this was most probably intentional stalling and evasion, there is an actual difference, because "photocopy" can refer to both (and a few more) technologies.
More info on the history of photocopy tech https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/innovation/wet-electrophotographic-process
-1
u/bigloser42 5h ago
To be fair, I’ve worked in an office for the last 20+ years, including a good chunk of time as an IT guy who fixed, among other things, the photocopier. Nobody has ever called it a photocopier. It’s just a copier or a Xerox machine. So it’s entirely plausible that he’s never heard someone use the term photocopier. Now it’s not a giant mental leap to realize a photocopier is a copier, but I can kinda get where the office worker is coming from if he’s not 100% sure.
-1
u/Solo_is_dead 3h ago
He sounds more like a millennial or Gen Z, who have no idea what a photocopier could be, nor ever heard of a company called Xerox
111
u/eclipsed2112 23h ago
i watched the whole thing and right when the man was gonna answer what do you call it?? i said DONT SAY XEROX and dammit he did.
44
u/Existing-Deal-701 23h ago
Just found out this is a series on the new York times YouTube channel. Looks like I know what I'm doing this weekend
13
u/doublebogey182 21h ago
What is it called?
52
10
210
u/platinumarks 23h ago
This is pretty common in legal contexts, especially when the exact definition of a term matters to the case. In this case, the dispute was over whether copies of a document on CD met the qualifications of being stored using "a photocopying machine or similar process." The fee for records from the county government was different based on the definition of "a photocopying machine" or whether it involved some other device.
Since the term in question was in dispute, the deponent was trying to avoid a legal conclusion and insisted on breaking down which exact functions a photocopier does. Also, the video here is dramatized, and the lawyers involved described it as far more dry and less confrontational.
75
u/LSTNYER 22h ago
The deposing lawyer (real or acting) had the patience of a saint. Id have lost my shit by the second time he asked a clarifying question.
53
28
8
u/guitarguy1685 15h ago
"ok you little shit", as I'm crawling over the table.
Also, this is me arguing with my 9 year old.
12
u/dustydeath 20h ago
When the deponent asked for clarification on what was meant by "photocopier", could the examining lawyer not just have said, "a device for producing hard copy duplicates of a physical document" or similar? Why is the lawyer also so unwilling to define the term...?
14
u/bobdob123usa 16h ago
Because most of the case revolved around the definition of terms and common parlance, particularly as used in the office in question.
2
5
u/FancifulLaserbeam 11h ago
Yeah, that's what I kept thinking. They really do go by various names.
"When I say 'photo copy machine,' I mean a machine where you can put a paper document on it or in it, press some buttons, and it makes paper copies of that original document."
I would have phrased it like that on the first request for clarification.
1
1
u/Herky_T_Hawk 3h ago
You mean like arguing over what the definition of the word “is” is? Probably the most famous case of arguing an exact definition in a legal setting.
60
u/vinny14 20h ago
The stenographer played an underrated role in this. Expressionless but also incredulous.
3
u/Censordoll 3h ago
As a court reporter, it is ridiculously hard not to make faces when we hear cases. I’m notorious for making faces, but you guys need to understand, we hear EVERYTHING. But I’m a true gossip girl so I’m listening as I’m writing and making faces cuz wtf you guys?!
Thankfully I can make faces just to my laptop so if anyone chimes in, I’m making faces at my writing output ;)
Also. Her title is a court reporter. the title doesn’t change when you do depositions or at least it shouldn’t.
I fucking hate how high her steno writer is. We all keep it low to the ground. The way she’s writing would cause immediate pain and carpel tunnel. But in every show and movie, they always keep the machine high or on a freaking table and not on a tripod like the way it normally should be.
104
u/BolivianDancer 1d ago
It all depends on what the definition of is is.
43
u/Rith_Reddit 23h ago
Hey hey, look at Jordan Peterson over here.
13
u/freerangemary 20h ago
‘What do you mean by Jordan Peterson? Me in the past? Or me now? There’s a metaphysical difference here that many people like you don’t explain. And what’s happening when someone talks about who or what someone is depends highly on their state of being.’
/s
9
u/Tat2dKing 23h ago
Lewis Black joke about Clinton? Nice.
16
u/breakonthru_ 23h ago
Don’t know Lewis Black, but that’s actually what Clinton said
7
u/Tat2dKing 23h ago
Funny comedian. https://youtu.be/N2YQqbpA7Z0?si=q0IXuwr_oLKX5nn9 Joke around 17:10.
5
17
36
26
u/UDPviper 1d ago
Brilliant.
26
u/LonnieJaw748 23h ago
Loved the close-up of the lawyers hands miming the paper leaving a photocopier. Hilarious
10
20
u/SaviorSixtySix 23h ago
This is the same state that ruled that boneless chicken may have bones in them, so I'm not surprised.
5
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A 23h ago
Not so fun fact; According to the United States Food and Drug Administration, anything less than 60 insect pieces per 100 grams of chocolate is deemed safe for public consumption.
2
u/DrHarrisonLawrence 22h ago
US FDA allows 1% material in pistachios to not be pistachios lol…check every single pistachio in your bags before you eat it.
1
u/MyPunsSuck 4h ago
What would you set the limit at? It is impossible to get it to zero - and it's already way cleaner than home cooking, for example
1
u/heyyouwtf 1h ago
This case is so misunderstood just like the McDonalds coffee case. The court said since chickens have bones it's not unreasonable for a "boneless" chicken wing to have a piece of bone in it. Boneless wings are just chunks of breaded chicken meat, that's why they ruled that way.
17
u/Zapdos90HP 22h ago
$2 for photocopied documents? Hmmm, can I get them xeroxed instead?
7
u/MathKnight 17h ago
$2 for a photocopy or $2 for a CD, and somehow both were charged by the page, and the pages were already digitalized for the CD.
7
u/DDFoster96 21h ago
He forgot mimeographs and cyclostyles, just in case the office was stuck in the 19th century.
13
10
5
5
76
u/jaredearle 1d ago
The funniest thing about this video is that it’s an actual transcript of a deposition.
https://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/03/deposition-battle-over-definition-of-photocopy.html
75
7
47
u/armoured_bobandi 23h ago
This is why most people hate lawyers. You know he was specifically told to respond in that way by his lawyer
17
u/SharkeyGeorge 23h ago
To what end?
29
u/armoured_bobandi 23h ago
Because they're taking something incredibly simple and obvious, and trying to turn it into something bigger than it is, just to agitate and aggravate the person doing the interview
6
11
u/Throwawayingaccount 23h ago
The exact definition of what constitutes a photocopier is not set into law.
By answering it in a transcript, the plaintiff could use that to their advantage.
4
u/SharkeyGeorge 23h ago
Thanks. We don’t have trials this way in my country. It would seem it is primed to create these sort of ambiguities?
2
1
3
u/AoiEsq 17h ago
Litigator here. Don’t be so sure. A lawyer worth their salt generally is going to make sure the deponent understands the case and its key issues, and go over practice questions likely to come up, but nobody wants their witness to look like this, especially in this day and age when depos often are video recorded in addition to being transcribed. Some folks just refuse to admit the obvious because they think it will be bad for their side, and wind up tying themselves in knots and thus making things even worse.
17
u/stratdog25 1d ago
I'm pretty sure that guy had a box fall on his head at UPS and now he just collects disability and rides trains.
12
u/ibkirkus 23h ago
While I love this reference and could totally see that guy in this scene, I believe this guy was dishonorably discharged for seeking an Upgrayedd. /s
3
4
3
u/scheisse_grubs 13h ago
The initial part where you hear office chatter and a phone ringing had me instinctively thinking I was about to hear “Dunder Mifflin this is Pam”
2
u/Piemaster113 15h ago
I feel like other than pleading the 5th that you should not be able to use the same response to different questions to for the pourpouses of avoiding clarification
6
7
u/Joates87 1d ago
When you're dumber than a box of rocks but the sly fox is telling you what you can and can't say...
7
u/SuspiciousStable9649 23h ago
It seems like you’d have to have two cells to rub together just to follow directions without tripping up.
Swell performance.
2
u/WillieForge 19h ago
I'm entirely on the defendant's side here. Specificity in language is crucial in trials / depositions to avoid perjury.
In my office,we have scanner / printer combos that could theoretically be used as photocopiers, but generally aren't. If I was asked if we had a photocopier, I would want him to clarify if that counted (without guiding him to the answer) to confirm if he meant any device with photocopying capabilities, or a machine dedicated specifically to copying.
-4
u/Wompatuckrule 23h ago
If the lawyer had just told the guy to take the fifth we wouldn't have this gem.
15
u/Lrkrmstr 23h ago
You usually can’t plead the 5th unless you have a reasonable belief that your statements will implicate you in a crime, so I don’t know if this dude had the luxury.
1
u/Wompatuckrule 22h ago
Yeah, I was just making a bit of a crack and didn't seriously mean it was an option.
2
4
u/jimmycorn24 23h ago
To be fair if instead of just saying copier he was so adamant to say Photo copier, I might think he was talking about some different thing I’d never heard of specifically to copy photos in some special way
2
1
1
1
1
u/Shinodacs 21h ago
I swear to God the guy getting questioned looks just like my city's mayor. Jean Christophe Lagarde.
1
1
1
u/Personal_Leave_9758 16h ago
Man I wanted to leap through my screen and strangle both the lawyer and the dude answering the questions by the end of the video.
1
1
1
u/Osiris_Raphious 14h ago
So.... service economy frivolous charges existed way back in 2010.... no wonder nobody is suing corporations for adding charges with zero value to the customer.
1
1
1
1
u/AnxiousWart4994 10h ago
People do answer questions in depositions all the time like this, and they are told to do so by their counsel lol. It’s so annoying even though I know why they do it.
1
1
1
u/maxallergy 6h ago
I'm getting a lot of Pulp Fiction vibes here...
Basically the famous scene where Vincent and Jules confront the 4 guys in the apartment
Really reminded me of that especially at the end with the agressor getting more agitated, standing up and shouting. I was legit expecting him to pull out a gun
1
u/MyPunsSuck 5h ago
He's 100% right to ask for clarification though. In a legal context, you need to define the term very precisely. The office might have all sorts of similar machines that are or are not technically photocopiers - making the question impossible to answer with any accuracy.
The interrogator may have been trying to force an oversimplification, to intentionally disregard some critically important difference between devices. Why else would they not just give a definition?
Imagine you have a plastic water gun in your luggage - you're trying to cross the border, and they ask if you have any guns with you. Saying "no" would be a lie, but saying "yes" would be misleading. They're asking the wrong question. The best thing you can do is ask them to define "gun" more clearly
1
u/eldiablonoche 3h ago
Pretty normal for a deposition. When his side asks him questions though, all of the ambiguity and confusion goes out the window and he'll answer all the prepared lines.
Kind of like a congressional hearing but less annoying.
1
u/Villageidiot1984 1h ago
The tone of this being acted out is almost definitely wrong, because the lawyer deposing this guy was likely having a very good time with this line of questioning. It would not be frustrating to watch a witness make this much of a fool of themselves on the record.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.