Arizona

Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure

Rule 32 – Using Depositions in Court Proceedings

(a) Using Depositions.

(1)In the Same or Similar Action. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition taken in the action-or in another federal or state court action involving the same subject matter between the same parties, or their representatives or predecessors in interest-may be used against a party if:

(A) the deposition testimony would be admissible under the Arizona Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present and testifying;
(B) the party or its predecessor in interest was present or represented at the deposition or had reasonable notice of it; and
(C) the party, its representative, or its predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by examination at the deposition.
(2)In a Different Action. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition taken in another federal or state court action may be used as allowed by the Arizona Rules of Evidence.
(3)Deponent’s Availability at Trial. Subject to Rule 32(a)(1) and (2), all or part of a deposition may be used at trial regardless of the deponent’s availability to testify at trial. Use of a deposition at trial does not limit, in any way, any party’s right to call the deponent to testify in person.
(4)Using Part of a Deposition. If a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, the court may require that party to introduce contemporaneously other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part offered.
(5)Substituted Party. Substituting a party under Rule 25 does not affect the right to use a previously taken deposition.
(b) Objections to Admissibility. Subject to Rules 28(b) and (c), and 32(d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing or trial to the admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying.
(c) Form of Presentation. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must provide a transcript of any deposition testimony the party offers, but also may provide the court with the testimony in nontranscript form. On any party’s request, deposition testimony offered in a jury trial for any purpose other than impeachment must be presented in nontranscript form, if available, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause. If the testimony is unavailable in audio or audiovisual form, the court may require a single presenter to read the designated parts of the deposition testimony to the jury.
(d) Preservation and Waiver of Objections.

(1)To the Notice. A party objecting to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice must promptly serve the objection in writing on the party giving the notice.
(2)To the Officer’s Qualification. A party objecting to the qualification of the officer before whom a deposition is to be taken must make such objection:

(A) before the deposition begins; or
(B) promptly after the basis for disqualification becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.
(3)To the Taking of the Deposition.

(A)To Competence, Relevance, or Materiality. A party objecting to a deponent’s competence-or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony-must make the objection before or during the deposition if the ground for the objection could have been corrected at that time.
(B)To an Error or Irregularity at an Oral Deposition. A party objecting to the manner of taking the deposition, the form of a question or answer, the oath or affirmation, a party’s conduct, or other matters that could be corrected at that time must timely make the objection during the deposition.
(C)To a Written Question. A party objecting to the form of a written question under Rule 31 must serve the objection under Rule 31(b)(3).
(4)To the Officer’s Completion and Return of Deposition. A party objecting to how the officer (A) transcribed the testimony, or (B) prepared, signed, certified, sealed, endorsed, delivered, or otherwise dealt with the deposition, must file a motion to suppress promptly after the error or irregularity becomes known or, with reasonable diligence, could have been known.

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 32

Amended effective January 1, 2017.