Opinion ID: 1583758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: admission of glass' deposition testimony

Text: In her third assignment of error, Sonja contends that the district court improperly allowed portions of Glass' deposition to be read into evidence. Sonja argues that the hearsay exception under § 27-804(2)(a) was not intended to allow for the admission of a discovery deposition because for that type of deposition, an attorney has less incentive to develop testimony than for a deposition to be used at trial. Sonja also argues that admitting discovery deposition testimony under the hearsay exception will have the chilling effect of requiring all attorneys to conduct a complete direct and redirect of all expert witnesses, prolonging the discovery phase and increasing costs to litigants. Finally, Sonja contends that the admission of a discovery deposition violates Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995) because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The burden to establish a declarant's unavailability is on the party seeking to introduce the evidence under § 27-804, and the determination of whether a witness is unavailable to appear at trial and give testimony is within the discretion of the trial court. [37] To constitute reversible error in a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence must unfairly prejudice a substantial right of a litigant complaining about such evidence admitted or excluded. [38] As with Sonja's second assignment of error, the record is insufficient to review whether the admission of Glass' deposition testimony requires a new trial. Erroneous admission of evidence is harmless error and does not require reversal if the evidence is cumulative and other relevant evidence, properly admitted, supports the finding by the trier of fact. [39] This court has specifically held that the erroneous admission of deposition testimony from a plaintiff's designated expert is not reversible error when there is other evidence to sustain the judgment. [40] Without a complete bill of exceptions, this court has no way of knowing whether Glass' deposition testimony was cumulative or whether other evidence sustained the judgment. Also, Neb. Ct. R. of Discovery 32(a)(4) (rev.2000) provides that [i]f only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require him or her to introduce any other part which ought in fairness to be considered with the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts relevant to the issues. On this record, we also have no way of knowing whether Sonja supplemented the portion of Glass' testimony that was read into evidence by offering another part of his deposition testimony. In other words, even if the admission was error, we have no way of knowing from this record whether it was harmless error and cannot conclude that the district court erred. Because of our determination that Sonja's assignments of error do not require a new trial, it is unnecessary for us to reach Kolbeck's assignment of error on cross-appeal.