Court House Videos
RULE 32. USING DEPOSITIONS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS
(a) Using Depositions.
(1) In General. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions:
(A) the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it;
(B) it is used to the extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present and testifying; and
(C) the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).
(2) Impeachment and Other Uses. Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the
deponent as a witness, or for any other purpose allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(3) Deposition of Party, Agent, or Designee. An adverse party may use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4).
(4) Unavailable Witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, if the court finds:
(A) that the witness is dead;
(B) that the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing or trial or is outside the United States, unless it appears that the witness's absence was procured by the party offering the deposition;
(C) that the witness cannot attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or imprisonment;
(D) that the party offering the deposition could not procure the witness's attendance by subpoena; or
(E) on motion and notice, that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in open court—to permit the deposition to be used.
(5) Limitations on Use.
(A) Deposition Taken on Short Notice. A deposition must not be used against a party who, having received less than 14 days’ notice of the deposition, promptly moved for a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1)(B) requesting that it not be taken or be taken at a different time or place—and this motion was still pending when the deposition was taken.
(B) Unavailable Deponent; Party Could Not Obtain an Attorney. A deposition taken without leave of court under the
unavailability provision of Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(iii) must not be used against a party who shows that, when served with the notice, it could not, despite diligent efforts, obtain an attorney to represent it at the deposition.
(6) Using Part of a Deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced, and any party may itself introduce any other parts.
(7) Substituting a Party. Substituting a party under Rule 25 does not affect the right to use a deposition previously taken.
(8) Deposition Taken in an Earlier Action. A deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal- or state-court action may be used in a later action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or successors in interest, to the same extent as if taken in the later action. A deposition previously taken may also be used as allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(b) Objections to Admissibility. Subject to Rules 28(b) and 32(d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing or trial to the
admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying.
(c) Form of Presentation. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must provide a transcript of any deposition testimony
the party offers, but may provide the court with the testimony in nontranscript form as well. On any party's request, deposition testimony offered in a jury trial for any purpose other than impeachment must be presented in nontranscript form, if available, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.
(d) Waiver of Objections.
(1) To the Notice. An objection to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party giving the notice.
(2) To the Officer's
Qualification. An objection based on disqualification of the officer before whom a deposition is to be taken is waived if not made:
(A) before the deposition begins; or
(B) promptly after the basis for disqualification becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
(3) To the Taking of the Deposition.
(A) Objection to Competence, Relevance, or Materiality. An objection to a deponent's competence—or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony—is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.
(B) Objection to an Error or Irregularity. An objection to an error or irregularity at an oral examination is waived if:
(i) it relates to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time; and (ii) it is not timely made during the deposition.
(C) Objection to a Written Question. An objection to the form of a written question under Rule 31 is waived if not served in writing on the party submitting the question within the time for serving responsive questions or, if the question is a recross-question, within 7 days after being served with it.
(4) To Completing and Returning the Deposition. An objection to how the officer transcribed the testimony—or prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, sent, or otherwise dealt with the deposition—is waived unless a motion to suppress is made promptly after the error or irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
(As amended Mar. 30, 1970, eff. July 1, 1970; Nov. 20, 1972, eff. July 1, 1975; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009.)
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937 This rule is in accordance with common practice. In most of the states listed in the Noteto Rule 26, provisions similar to this rule will be found in the statutes which in their respective statutory compilations follow those cited in the Note to Rule 26. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1970 Amendment
As part of the rearrangement of the discovery rules, existing subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Rule 26 are transferred to Rule 32 as new subdivisions (a), (b), and (c). The provisions of Rule 32 are retained as subdivision (d) of Rule 32 with appropriate changes in the lettering and numbering of subheadings. The new rule is given a suitable new title. A beneficial byproduct of the rearrangement is that provisions which are naturally related to one another are placed in one rule. A change is made in new Rule 32(a), whereby it is made clear that the rules of evidence are to be applied to depositions offered at trial as though the deponent were then present and testifying at trial. This eliminates the possibility of certain technical hearsay
objections which are based, not on the contents of deponent's testimony, but on his absence from court. The language of present Rule 26(d) does not appear to authorize these technical objections, but it is not entirely clear. Note
present Rule 26(e), transferred to Rule 32(b); see 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 164–166
(Wright ed. 1961).
An addition in Rule 32(a)(2) provides for use of a deposition of a person designated by a corporation or other organization, which is a party, to testify on its behalf. This complements the new procedure for taking the deposition of a corporation or other organization provided in Rules 30(b)(6) and 31(a). The addition is appropriate, since the deposition is in substance and effect that of the corporation or other organization which is a party. A change is made in the standard under which a party offering part of a deposition in evidence may be required to introduce additional parts of the deposition. The new standard is contained in a proposal made by the Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence. See Rule 1–07 and accompanying Note, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Rules of Evidence for the United States District Courts and Magistrates 21–22 (March, 1969).
References to other rules are changed to conform to the rearrangement, and minor verbal changes have been made for
clarification. The time for objecting to written questions served under Rule 31 is slightly extended.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1972 Amendment Subdivision (e). The concept of “making a person one's own witness” appears to have had significance principally in two respects: impeachment and waiver of incompetency. Neither retains any vitality under the Rules of Evidence. The old prohibition against impeaching one's own witness is eliminated by Evidence Rule 607. The lack of recognition in the Rules of Evidence of state rules of incompetency in the Dead Man's area renders it unnecessary to consider aspects of waiver arising from calling the incompetent party witness. Subdivision (c)
is deleted because it appears to be no longer necessary in the light of the Rules of Evidence.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1980 Amendment Subdivision (a)(1). Rule 801(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits a prior inconsistent statement of a witness in a deposition to be used as substantive evidence. And Rule 801(d)(2) makes the statement of an agent or servant admissible against the principal under the circumstances described in the Rule. The language of the present subdivision is, therefore, too narrow.
Subdivision (a)(4). The requirement that a prior action must have been
dismissed before depositions taken for use in it can be used in a subsequent
action was doubtless an oversight, and the courts have ignored it. See Wright
& Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2150. The final sentence is added to reflect the fact that
the Federal Rules of Evidence permit a broader use of depositions previously
taken under certain circumstances. For example, Rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence provides that if a witness is unavailable, as that term is
defined by the rule, his deposition in any earlier proceeding can be used
against a party to the prior proceeding who had an opportunity and similar
motive to develop the testimony of the witness.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment
The amendment is technical. No
substantive change is intended.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment
Subdivision (a). The last sentence of revised subdivision (a) not only
includes the substance of the provisions formerly contained in the second
paragraph of Rule 30(b)(2), but adds a provision to deal with the situation
when a party, receiving minimal notice of a proposed deposition, is unable to
obtain a court ruling on its motion for a protective order seeking to delay or
change the place of the deposition. Ordinarily a party does not obtain
protection merely by the filing of a motion for a protective order under Rule
26(c); any protection is dependent upon the court's ruling. Under the revision,
a party receiving less than 11 days notice of a deposition can, provided its
motion for a protective order is filed promptly, be spared the risks resulting
from nonattendance at the deposition held before its motion is ruled upon.
Although the revision of Rule 32(a) covers only the risk that the deposition
could be used against the non-appearing movant, it should also follow that,
when the proposed deponent is the movant, the deponent would have “just cause”
for failing to appear for purposes of Rule 37(d)(1). Inclusion of this
provision is not intended to signify that 11 days’ notice is the minimum
advance notice for all depositions or that greater than 10 days should
necessarily be deemed sufficient in all situations.
Subdivision (c). This new subdivision, inserted at the location of a
subdivision previously abrogated, is included in view of the increased
opportunities for video-recording and audio-recording of depositions under
revised Rule 30(b). Under this rule a party may offer deposition testimony in
any of the forms authorized under Rule 30(b) but, if offering it in a
nonstenographic form, must provide the court with a transcript of the portions
so offered. On request of any party in a jury trial, deposition testimony
offered other than for impeachment purposes is to be presented in a
nonstenographic form if available, unless the court directs otherwise. Note
that under Rule 26(a)(3)(B) a party expecting to use nonstenographic deposition
testimony as substantive evidence is required to provide other parties with a
transcript in advance of trial.
Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment
The language of Rule 32 has been
amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more
easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the
rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.
Former Rule 32(a) applied “[a]t the
trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding.” The
amended rule describes the same events as “a hearing or trial.”
The final paragraph of former Rule
32(a) allowed use in a later action of a deposition “lawfully taken and duly
filed in the former action.” Because of the 2000 amendment of Rule 5(d), many
depositions are not filed. Amended Rule 32(a)(8) reflects this change by
excluding use of an unfiled deposition only if filing was required in the
Committee Notes on Rules—2009 Amendment
The times set in the former rule at
less than 11 days and within 5 days have been revised to 14 days and 7 days.
See the Note to Rule 6.
References in Text
The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred
to in subd. (a)(2), (8), are set out in this Appendix.
Effective Date of Amendment Proposed November 20, 1972
Amendment of this rule embraced by the
order entered by the Supreme Court of the United States on November 20, 1972,
effective on the 180th day beginning after January 2, 1975, see section 3 of
Pub. L. 93–595, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1959, set out as a note under section
2074 of this title.