Opinion ID: 76891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Depositions

Text: 47 Fernández also appeals the district court's allowance of several depositions into evidence. We review evidentiary rulings of the district court for abuse of discretion. See Palmer v. Bd. of Regents, 208 F.3d 969, 973 (11th Cir.2000). 48 At trial, both parties presented videotaped excerpts of the sworn and transcribed deposition testimony of six Chilean witnesses. These witnesses were Chilean nationals residing in Chile and were deposed in Chile. Each witness gave personal accounts of the atrocities in which Fernández participated. 49 Fernández argues that these depositions considered by the jury were improperly admitted because they did not comply with the oath provision of Federal Rule of Procedure 28(b). Subsection (b)(3) of the rule provides that a deposition may be taken on notice before a person authorized to administer oaths in the place where the examination is held, either by the law thereof or by the law of the United States. Fed.R.Civ.P. 28(b)(3). 50 The Cabello survivors respond that Fernández waived his objections, starting with the fourth deposition. At the commencement of the fourth deposition, the Cabello survivors responded to Fernández's previous objections by offering to procure a Chilean notary authorized to administer oaths under Chilean law. Because Fernández's counsel declined this offer, the Cabello survivors argue that Fernández constructively waived his objection to technical error, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(d)(3)(B). 51 Rule 32(d)(3)(B) provides in relevant part: [e]rrors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination ... in the oath or affirmation ... and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented, are waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.  (emphasis added). The rules distinguish objections to the manner of taking the deposition from objections as to the substance of the testimony (such as relevancy or competency) because allowing counsel to wait until trial to object might encourage sandbagging. See, e.g., Kirschner v. Broadhead, 671 F.2d 1034, 1037-38 (7th Cir.1982); Bahamas Agric. Indus., Ltd. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 526 F.2d 1174, 1180-81 (6th Cir.1975). 52 Because the defect in the oath could have been cured at the taking of the deposition, Fernández's counsel's refusal to accept the cure constituted a constructive waiver. The facts of this case fall within the purview of Rule 32(d)(3)(B). Thus, even though Fernández objected at trial, his failure to object at the taking of the deposition was correctly deemed a waiver. The district court was well within its discretion in admitting the contested depositions into evidence. We accordingly affirm the district court's ruling on this issue. 53