Prestenback v. Employers' Insurance Companies

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that Rule 32 does not “evince a distinction as to admissibility at trial between a deposition taken solely for purposes of discovery and one taken for use at trial”
• refusing to admit deposition testimony of witness who had been excused at trial without any effort to elicit evidence now offered through deposition
• noting that in-person depositions allow attorneys to observe witness’ demeanor and non-verbal cues
• refusing to admit deposition testimony of witness who had been excused at trial without any effort to elicit evidence now offered through deposition
• Fed.R.Evid. 804 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 32 are independent methods of admitting depositions
• although, in protracted litigation, “the time at which the deponent’s location should be examined should extend beyond the time of offering,” that examination was still limited to “any time during presentation of proponent’s case when a trial subpoena could have been served.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).