Opinion ID: 2504815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Exclusion of Deposition

Text: Carolina Chloride next argues the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the exclusion of Terry Brown's deposition. At trial, Carolina Chloride wished to introduce the deposition it had taken of Brown, who was formerly the County's Zoning Administrator. At the time of his deposition, however, Brown had left this position and become a member of the Board of Adjustment. [3] The trial judge excluded the deposition based on the County's objection pursuant to Rule 32(a)(2), SCRCP, which provides in relevant part that the deposition of anyone who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a governmental agency, corporation, partnership, or association that is a party may be used for any purpose by an adverse party. The County maintained the deposition was not admissible because Brown did not fall within the scope of the rule. The trial judge rejected Carolina Chloride's only argument that Brown met the requirements of Rule 32(a)(2) because he was currently a member of the Board of Adjustment. The judge's ruling applied only to Brown's deposition testimony and did not prevent Brown from being called as a witness at trial. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, stating Carolina Chloride did not lay any foundation as to why Brown's role on the Board qualifies under Rule 32(a)(2). Carolina Chloride, 382 S.C. at 644, 677 S.E.2d at 897. The court observed Carolina Chloride could have attempted to demonstrate that Brown qualified as an unavailable witness under Rule 32(a)(3), SCRCP or, if Brown was available, he should have been called as a witness at trial. Id. The court did not reach Carolina Chloride's additional argument referencing Rule 801(d)(2), SCRE because it was not raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge and, therefore, was not preserved since an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Id. at 645 n.4, 677 S.E.2d at 897 n. 4 (citing Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998)). Carolina Chloride now asserts the Court of Appeals erred in excluding the deposition because the County asked Carolina Chloride not to contact or have ex parte discussions with Brown, so it honored this request and took his deposition instead. Carolina Chloride contends the County treated Brown as its employee by making this request, citing Rule 3.4(f)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR (observing a lawyer should not request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information unless the person is a relative, employee, or other agent of a client); therefore, Brown should be considered the County's employee for purposes of satisfying the requirements of Rule 32(a)(2), SCRCP. Although we are deeply troubled by the County's seemingly inconsistent positions regarding this witness, Carolina Chloride's argument was not raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge so as to preserve it for review. Wilder Corp., 330 S.C. at 76, 497 S.E.2d at 733. We note, however, that Carolina Chloride did proffer Brown's deposition for the record and it has failed to demonstrate any prejudice in its exclusion, in any event. See generally Fields v. J. Haynes Waters Builders, Inc., 376 S.C. 545, 557, 658 S.E.2d 80, 86 (2008) ([T]o warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appealing party must show both the error of the ruling and prejudice.).