Opinion ID: 3010672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury's Request for Deposition Transcripts

Text: During the jury's deliberations, the jury sent out the following question to the court: We need a clarification on this issue: Are we entitled to review any or all of the depositions that are in evidence inside the jury room? App. at 346. After consulting with counsel, the district judge determined that the jury sought transcripts of depositions, rather than transcripts of the deposition testimony read during trial or a readback of such testimony. Consequently, the district judge told the jury that he would not send the depositions into the jury room because they were not admitted into evidence. The court further instructed the jury that they should rely upon their collective recollection of the depositions that were read into evidence during trial and they should send out another question if the court did not satisfactorily answer their question. No further questions were submitted. Plaintiff contends that the district court abused its discretion [b]y refusing the jury's request to review transcripts of deposition testimony entered in evidence, or alternatively, to permit readback of such testimony . . . . 7 Plaintiff's Br. at 29 (citing United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384 (3d Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff argues that, while such a decision is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, a court's discretion is nevertheless circumscribed by two factors: whether `(1) such requests may slow the trial where the requested testimony is lengthy; (2) [and] when read only a portion of testimony, the jury may give undue weight to that portion.'  Id. (quoting Bertoli, 40 F.3d at 1400). According to plaintiff, the district court abused its discretion because its ruling was not bottomed on either of these concerns. Plaintiff's argument merits little discussion. As the district court correctly observed, the jury did not ask for written transcripts of testimony or a readback of such testimony. Instead, the jury requested transcripts of the actual depositions. Because the deposition transcripts were never admitted into evidence, however, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by refusing the jury's request.