Tatman v. Collins

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
938 F.2d 509 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32, a deposition may be used at trial if the witness is more than 100 miles from the courthouse, regardless of whether the deposition was originally taken for discovery purposes or for use at trial. The 100-mile distance is measured from the courthouse, not the border of the judicial district.

Facts:

On April 15, 1986, Monte L. Tatman's automobile was struck from the rear by a tractor-trailer driven by Bobby Wayne Collins.
Following the accident, Tatman was treated for various injuries by Dr. Joseph Amico, whose practice was located in Columbus, Ohio.
Rebecca Tatman, Monte's wife, alleged that the accident caused uncontrollable fluctuations in his blood pressure.
Almost a year after the accident, Tatman was hospitalized with a cerebral aneurysm.
On March 12, 1987, the aneurysm ruptured and Monte L. Tatman died.
In a deposition, Dr. Amico testified that in his opinion, there was a causal connection between the injuries from the accident and the subsequent rupture of the aneurysm.

Procedural Posture:

Rebecca Tatman (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bobby Wayne Collins and H&T Trucking Services, Inc. (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the court of first instance.
During discovery, the defendants took the deposition of Dr. Amico.
At trial, the plaintiff attempted to introduce Dr. Amico's deposition as evidence because the doctor was unavailable.
The defendants objected, and the district court excluded the deposition.
The district court then struck the testimony of another expert for the plaintiff, Dr. Wecht, because his opinion relied on Dr. Amico's excluded testimony.
Following the exclusion of the expert testimony, the district court granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the wrongful death claim.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the survivor's claim.
The plaintiff, Rebecca Tatman, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the district court err by excluding a witness's deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 on the grounds that it was taken for discovery purposes and the witness was located within 100 miles of the district's border, though more than 100 miles from the courthouse?

Opinions:

Majority - Niemeyer, Circuit Judge

Yes, the district court erred by excluding the deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 does not distinguish between a deposition taken for discovery and one taken for use at trial, and the 100-mile unavailability rule is measured from the courthouse, not the district border. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 1970 to deliberately eliminate any distinction between 'discovery' and 'de bene esse' (trial) depositions regarding admissibility. So long as all parties had the opportunity to attend, the deposition is admissible if the witness is unavailable. Furthermore, Rule 32(a)(3)(B) specifies the distance is from the 'place of trial,' which the court interprets to mean the courthouse. This provides a definite standard for witness convenience, unlike measuring from a district's border, which would create a variable standard depending on the district's size and the trial's location within it.

Dissenting - K.K. Hall, Circuit Judge

No, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and its ruling should be affirmed. While the majority is correct on the technical interpretation of the rules, a district court has broad discretion to manage litigation and ensure fairness. The plaintiff did not disclose the intent to use Dr. Amico's deposition in the pretrial order, effectively ambushing the defense with it at the last minute. Excluding it on grounds of unfairness was within the court's discretion. Moreover, the expert testimony was speculative and weak, lacking a sufficient factual basis to establish proximate causation, meaning a directed verdict would have been appropriate even if the deposition had been admitted.

Analysis:

This case provides a significant clarification of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32, affecting litigation strategy and the use of depositions. It firmly establishes that the purpose for which a deposition was taken is irrelevant to its admissibility, preventing parties from blocking deposition testimony on the grounds it was only for 'discovery.' The decision also creates a bright-line rule for the 100-mile standard, measuring from the courthouse, which simplifies application and ensures a uniform standard of convenience for witnesses across all federal districts, regardless of their geographical size.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tatman v. Collins (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"