Opinion ID: 735718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The use of depositions

Text: 19 At trial, Meenach wanted to play or read parts of several depositions. GMC objected because it planned to call these witnesses live during its case-in-chief. The court sustained this objection and assured Meenach's counsel that he would be allowed to play or read the deposition testimony if the witnesses did not appear live. As it turned out, two of the witnesses testified during GMC's case-in-chief, but two did not. The court then gave Meenach's counsel the chance to introduce the deposition testimony of the two who did not; counsel read excerpts from one of the depositions but declined to read from the other. 20 The court's ruling may or may not have technically violated the rule that [t]he deposition of any witness ... may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds ... that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(3)(B). Even if it did, however, Meenach suffered little prejudice. Any error that may have occurred was harmless and does not warrant reversal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. 21