Tatman v. Collins

Brief Fact Summary.

Almost a year after the Plaintiff’s husband was involved in an auto accident, he suffered a cerebral anuerysm that ruptured and led to his death. The trial court excluded deposition testimony of the husband’s treating physician at trial because it was taken early in the case and because of the physician’s geographic proximity to the forum state. The trial court also excluded testimony  of another doctor, who relied on the treating physician’s testimony.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

(1) If a witness in unavailable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3) [now Rule 32(a)(4)], deposition testimony may be introduced at trial, subject to the rules of evidence where the deposition was duly noticed and all parties had the opportunity to attend.

(2) Deposition testimony should not be excluded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3)(B) [now Rule 32(a)(4)(B)] if a witness is located beyond 100 miles of the courthouse (as opposed to the border of the district) and his absence was  not procured by a party.

Facts.

Plaintiff’s husband was involved in an automobile accident. Almost a year after the accident, Plaintiff’s husband developed a cerebral anuerysm that ruptured and led to his death.  Plaintiff sued Defendant after her husband’s death. Her complaint alleged, among other things, that his death was a result of the accident inasmuch as it adversely affected his blood pressure, which caused the ruptured aneurysm. The husband’s treating physician provided deposition testimony during discovery, but a scheduling conflict prevented his attendance at trial. The trial court excluded the deposition testimony because it was taken early in the case and because of the doctor’s geographic proximity to the forum state. The trial court also excluded testimony  of another doctor, who relied on the treating physician’s testimony. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. On the survivor’s claim, the jury found that the husband’s injury was not caused by the accident.

Issue.

Did the trial court properly exclude deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s husband’s treating physician?

Held.

No. The deposition testimony of Plaintiff’s husband’s treating physician was not properly excluded.

Dissent.

Justice Hall

The dissent argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the deposition,  noting that the pretrial order indicated that the treating doctor would be a witness and not that his deposition testimony would be offered a trial.

Discussion.

Deposition testimony cannot be excluded on the grounds that the deposition was taken for discovery purposes and was not expected to be used a trial; subject to the rules of evidence, deposition testimony may be introduced at trial  where, as here, the deposition was duly noticed and all parties had the opportunity to attend.  Also, for the purpose of determining where a witness is located, the relevant measure is beyond 100 miles of the courthouse, as opposed to the border of the district.