Tatman v. Collins

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

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

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureUse of depositions at trialRule 32Fed. R. Civ. P. 32depositionsdiscovery depositiontrial 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, defendants deposed Dr. Joseph Amico, Tatman's treating physician, 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 and was located in Columbus, Ohio, more than 100 miles from the Charleston courthouse, the plaintiff sought to use his deposition, but the district court excluded it because it had been taken for discovery and because Columbus was within 100 miles of the district's border.

Issue

Whether the district court erred under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 by excluding a treating physician's deposition on the grounds that it was taken only for discovery purposes and that the witness was within 100 miles of the district's border, though more than 100 miles from the courthouse where trial was held.

Rule

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 makes no distinction between a deposition taken for discovery and one taken for use at trial. If a deposition was duly noticed and the parties had the 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 'place of trial' means the courthouse where the trial occurs, not the geographic 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 federal negligence trial in Richmond, Virginia, Lena Ortiz seeks to read portions of a deposition of Mason Kerr, an eyewitness who now lives in Raleigh, North Carolina, 170 miles from the Richmond courthouse. The deposition was noticed by the defendant during early discovery, and both sides attended and questioned Kerr.

The defendant objects that the deposition is inadmissible because it was taken only for discovery and was never designated as a trial deposition. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that Rule 32 makes no distinction between a deposition taken for discovery and one taken for use at trial. If the deposition was duly noticed, the parties had the opportunity to attend, and the witness is unavailable under Rule 32(a)(3), it may be used at trial subject to the rules of evidence. The fact that the defendant initiated the deposition or intended it only for discovery is irrelevant.