Opinion ID: 2200470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Banks' Use of Depositions.

Text: During the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, Robert DiGrazia, Banks' counsel introduced, and the trial judge admitted, the depositions of several officers involved in the pursuit. DiGrazia summarized the depositions rather than reading them to the jury verbatim. The District contends that the depositions were improperly admitted, claiming that none of the officers was an officer, director, or managing agent of a party opponent, see Super.Ct.Civ.R. 32(a)(2), and that no showing was made that any of the officers was not available to testify in person. Assuming, without deciding, that the District preserved its objection, [10] and that the depositions were inadmissible as substantive evidence, we are satisfied that sworn testimony by the officers would be reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. See Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidente, adopted by this court in In re Melton, 597 A.2d 892, 900-04 (D.C.1991) (en banc). The depositions were thus admissible, if not for the truth of the matter asserted, then at least to show the basis upon which DiGrazia reached his conclusions. The District may well have been entitled to an instruction that the depositions could be considered only for that limited purpose, but no request for such a limiting instruction was made in the trial court. [11] Under these circumstances, the admission of the depositions does not warrant reversal of the judgment.