Tatman v. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1991 · Civil Procedure

938 F.2d 509 (4th Cir. 1991)

Updated July 31, 2026

civprodepositionsRule 32trial evidenceFed. R. Civ. P. 32deposition use at trialdiscovery depositionwitness unavailability

Facts

Monte Tatman was injured in a rear-end collision and later died when a cerebral aneurysm ruptured. His wife sued, alleging the accident caused blood pressure changes that led to the rupture. During discovery, the defendants deposed treating physician Dr. Amico, who testified that the accident-related injuries were causally connected to the later rupture. When Dr. Amico could not attend trial because of a scheduling conflict, the plaintiff offered his deposition, but the district court excluded it because it was viewed as a discovery deposition and because the doctor was within 100 miles of the district's border, though more than 100 miles from the Charleston courthouse.

Issue

May a deposition be excluded under Rule 32 merely because it was taken for discovery purposes rather than specifically for trial use? Under Rule 32(a)(3)(B), is the 100-mile distance measured from the courthouse where trial is held or from the borders of the judicial district?

Rule

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, no distinction exists between depositions taken for discovery and those taken for use at trial; if a deposition was duly noticed and the parties had an opportunity to attend, it may be used at trial, subject to the rules of evidence, when the witness is unavailable under Rule 32(a)(3). For Rule 32(a)(3)(B), the witness must be more than 100 miles from the place of trial, and the place of trial is the courthouse where the trial occurs, not the borders of the district.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence trial in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, Maya Chen seeks to read part of a deposition of eyewitness Leo Barnes. The deposition was noticed by the defendant during early discovery, all counsel attended, and Leo now lives in Raleigh, North Carolina, 170 miles from the Richmond courthouse.

The defendant objects that the deposition is inadmissible because it was taken only as a discovery deposition and not specifically preserved for trial. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 32 makes no distinction between depositions taken for discovery and those taken for trial use. If the deposition was duly noticed, the parties had an opportunity to attend, the testimony is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, and the witness is unavailable within Rule 32(a)(3), the deposition may be used. The fact that the defendant took it early in discovery does not alone justify exclusion.