Opinion ID: 878365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: use of edington deposition

Text: Creek Oil Company and Biby claim on appeal that it was improper for the District Court to allow the deposition of plaintiff Mrs. Phyllis Edington to be used at trial in her absence as a witness. Creek Oil and Biby contend that the deposition of Mrs. Edington was taken as a discovery deposition, that she is a resident of Sidney, Montana, where the trial was held, and that she was not unavailable for appearance as a witness as Rule 804(a)(5), M.R.Evid., requires. Testimony in the case indicated that at the time of the trial Phyllis Edington was residing in Mesa, Arizona, and that she spent part of the time in Arizona and the remainder of the year in Sidney. At the time of the trial she was in Arizona. The District Court permitted the use of her deposition under the terms of Rule 32(a)(3)(B). That rule provides: The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: ... (B) That the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; ... Under the record in this case, the District Court was clearly within the provisions of Rule 32(a), allowing the use of the deposition of Mrs. Edington, although she was a party to the action. No other distinction is made in the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure between depositions taken in discovery, and those intended to be used at trial. The provisions of Rule 804, M.R. Evid., are not applicable to the problem of the use of the Edington deposition. Rule 804 is directed to hearsay exceptions. It is Rule 32, M.R.Civ.P. that governs the use of depositions at trial. We find no error in the use of the Edington deposition.