Arizona

Family Law

Family Law

Rule 59 – 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 59(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 contemporaneously introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part offered.
(5)Substituted Party. Substituting a party under Rule 37 does not affect the right to use a previously taken deposition.
(6)Other uses. A deposition may also be used as permitted by Rule 2 of these rules.
(b) Objections to Admissibility. Subject to Rules 55(b) and (c), and 59(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.

(1)Generally. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must provide the court a transcript of any deposition testimony the party offers, but also may provide the court with the testimony in non-transcript form.
(2)Designation. A party intending to offer deposition testimony at trial or at a hearing, for any purpose other than impeachment, must designate the portions to be offered by page and line reference and identify the party or parties against whom it will be offered. The designations must be included in any pretrial or prehearing statement required by the court.
(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. Objections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one that might have been obviated or removed if presented 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.
(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. Fam. Law. proc. 59

Added Oct. 19, 2005, effective Jan. 1, 2006. Amended Sept. 5, 2007, effective Jan. 1, 2008; amended effectiveJan. 1, 2019.