One of the hardest things to teach students is how to deal with the sometimes significant variation in judicial reactions to similar conduct. The attached sanctions order (Download Memorandum Opinion And Order) is a nice example.
The judge in this case views "object to form" as inadequate to state a deposition objection. He wants to see "objection, compound" or the like, which I prefer as well. The opinion notes, however, that other courts have viewed anything more than "object to form" as impermissible coaching, which I've heard from several lawyers based in the SDNY.
Two things to note about this very thorough and thoughtful order. Noting the division of opinion on stating objections the court does not issue the sanction for counsel's moderately extensive objections. The court seemed to me more concerned by the consistency with which the deponent's answers tracked the objections, which to the court implied impermissible coaching. The opinion is getting more press for the nature of the sanction--having the lawyer create a video on how to make a proper deposition objection--but to me the more interesting issue from a teaching perspective is how to prepare students to deal with a world in which what one judge requires another forbids, which is the real world. "Pay close attention to custom" is helpful, and an obvious point, but I do find that students throw up their hands and tend toward nihilism when they perceive how much variation they will face. Teaching realism without nihilism is important but tough.