While Higgins is a defense witness (correct me if mistaken), I'm wondering what he has to gain from the deposition.  If he has little to gain, perhaps not so willing to provide the defendants with the ammunition they hoped for.  I got the impression from the 'opinion' comment and courts' rejection, that Higgins was trying to stay in the gray area - a la to the best of my knowledge, as best as I can recall, in my opinion, etc....  and the court was putting his feet to the fire. Would be nice to know his legal standing if Higgins now says any of statements made in any of the documents in question are not accurate.  Opty