Also known as: oral depositions · deposition · oral depo
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A discovery procedure in which a witness gives sworn oral testimony in response to questions from counsel. The testimony is recorded by a court reporter and may be used at trial for impeachment or as substantive evidence when the declarant is unavailable.
Oswald Orozco testified at trial that he never saw loose scaffolding. Defense counsel confronted him with his earlier oral deposition in which he had sworn he warned the site superintendent about the planking. Because the deposition was given under penalty of perjury, the prior statement was admitted for its truth.
Prosecutors moved to depose a key informant who faced deportation before trial. The court found exceptional circumstances and ordered the oral deposition so the testimony could be preserved and later introduced if the witness remained unavailable.
After the witness relocated abroad and refused to return, the plaintiff offered the transcript of the witness's oral deposition taken in an earlier administrative proceeding. The court admitted the transcript because the defendant had attended and possessed a similar motive to examine the witness.
The defense served written notice identifying the deponent and the deposition location. When the government objected to the date, the court granted a short continuance for good cause while preserving the parties' opportunity to attend the oral deposition.
After the defendant was served while briefly present in the forum, counsel arranged an oral deposition by telephone to accommodate the witness's travel schedule. The court permitted the remote format to avoid harassment while still allowing full cross-examination.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
The defendant moved for summary judgment and attached excerpts from the plaintiff's oral deposition showing an absence of evidence on an essential element. The court treated the deposition testimony as competent evidence that shifted the burden to the plaintiff to come forward with contrary proof.
In September 1980 respondent Catrett, as administratrix of her husband's estate, commenced a wrongful-death action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against fifteen named corporations including petitioner Celotex Corporation. The complaint alleged that her husband Louis H. Catrett died in 1979 from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on diversity grounds. After extensive discovery Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment in September 1981 asserting that respondent had failed to produce any evidence that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex asbestos products. In response respondent produced a transcript of the decedent's deposition taken in a separate California proceeding, a letter from an official of one of Celotex's former insurance companies, and a letter from one of Celotex's customers. In July 1982 the District Court granted summary judgment to Celotex on the ground that respondent had made no showing of exposure to Celotex products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period. Respondent appealed only that ruling. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that Celotex had failed to meet its initial burden because it made no effort to adduce affirmative evidence supporting its motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits concerning the proper standard under Rule 56.
The statement must have been given under penalty of perjury at a deposition or other proceeding, the declarant must testify and be subject to cross-examination at trial, and the statement must be inconsistent with the declarant's trial testimony.
…they employed comports with standard scientific procedures. In support of these assertions, plaintiffs offer only the trial and deposition testimony of these experts in other cases. While these materials indicate that plaintiffs' experts have relied on animal studies, chemical structure analyses and epidemiological data, they…
…for summary judgment. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and 56. He can use relatively inexpensive methods of discovery, such as oral deposition by telephone (Rule 30(b)(7)),
…in spotting at least the endangered elephant and leopard." Id. , at 145-146. When Ms. Skilbred was asked at a subsequent deposition if and when she had any plans to return to Sri Lanka, she reiterated that "I intend to go back to Sri Lanka," but confessed that she had no current plans: "I don't know [when]. There is a…
…that bare allegation suffices under a system that restricts the pleadings to the task of general notice-giving and invests the deposition-discovery process with a vital role in the preparation for trial. Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947); see also Swierkiewicz , 534 U.S. at 513, n.4 (citing Form 9 as an example…
…when she left the defendant's premises. In support of its motion for summary judgment, Kress submitted statements from a deposition of one of its employees asserting that he had not communicated or agreed with the police to deny plaintiff service or to have her arrested, and explaining that the store had taken the…
A party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances and that the deposition serves the interest of justice. The court may also require production of designated non-privileged materials at the deposition.
The deposition must have been taken at a lawful proceeding, the party against whom it is offered must have had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony, and the declarant must be unavailable at trial.
Reasonable written notice stating the date, location, and name and address of each deponent must be provided to every other party. The court may change the date or location for good cause.
An oral deposition involves live questioning by counsel with immediate follow-up, while a deposition on written questions uses pre-served written questions and cross-questions answered without counsel present.