Opinion ID: 172063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Deposition Testimony

Text: Next, Ms. Kreisler argues the district court erred by allowing CCC to read portions of her deposition into evidence at the bench trial. Specifically, she claims nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Rules of Evidence allowed for this evidence. We review a district court's decision to admit evidence, including witness testimony, for abuse of discretion. FDIC v. Oldenburg, 34 F.3d 1529, 1555 (10th Cir.1994). Under the abuse of discretion standard, the district court will be reversed only if it made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. Beck v. N. Natural Gas Co., 170 F.3d 1018, 1025 (10th Cir.1999) (quotation marks omitted). At the bench trial, CCC read portions of Ms. Kreisler's deposition testimony into the record over Ms. Kreisler's Rule 32 objection. After CCC argued the testimony was allowable as an admission of a party-opponent, the court admitted the evidence. Under Rule 32, a deposition may be used at trial against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it when its use fits into one of three outlined provisions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 32. One provision allows a deposition to be admitted into evidence for the purpose of impeaching the deponent as a witness or for any other purpose allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. Ms. Kreisler argues that none of Rule 32's provisions allow the testimony in this case. She also implies that under any provision, CCC had to first establish her unavailability to testify. [4] CCC is correct is in its contention that it is permissible under Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence to admit a deposition as a statement of a party-opponent. Moreover, neither Rule 801(d)(2) nor Rule 32(a)(1) require a showing of unavailability for admissions of party-opponents. Rule 32 allows a party to introduce as a part of his substantive proof, the deposition of his adversary, and it is quite immaterial that the adversary is available to testify at trial or has testified there. Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767, 773 (10th Cir.1999) (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the deposition as an admission of a party-opponent under Rule 32(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).