Court Opinion

ID: 9569597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:15:27.226606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:34.312721
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge,
concurring:
I concur fully in the thorough and well reasoned main opinion. I write separately only to emphasize that it is the apparent failure of the two depositions of plaintiff *641Conder to be filed with the district court pursuant to Rule 30(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than any failure formally to have had the depositions published, which I find fatal to respondents’ position. Rule 56(c) entitles a party to summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” so warrant.1 Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c) (emphasis added).
While there has been a quaint custom in this state, apparently of longstanding, that depositions, even once duly filed, may not be used for Rule 56 purposes until they have been formally published, I see no requirement of formal publication in Rule 56 or anywhere else in our rules.2 On the contrary, I see an entitlement to rely on filed depositions, if otherwise proper, when making a summary judgment motion without having to go through any additional procedural hoops.3 Confusion about a requirement of formal publication ought to be definitively put to rest with new Rule 32(d), Utah R.Civ.P., which became effective January 1, 1987. While this change should hasten the demise of the formal publication tradition, a requirement of formal publication has been nothing but illusory heretofore anyway.
Had the depositions been duly filed, and as they were used in support of the motion for summary judgment, I at least would view them as eligible for inclusion in the record under the former practice of designating the record on appeal or as automatically part of the record under Utah R.App.P. 11(a) and R.Utah Ct.App. 11(a) despite the fact they were not formalistically published. I might even be inclined to grant the renewed motion to supplement the record if the only reason we did not have the depositions available to us was because they had not been formally published. But, alas, we are unable to determine from the record that the depositions were even filed, and for failure of the record to show us otherwise respondents have no one to blame but themselves. See Utah R.Civ.P. 30(f)(3).

.The deposition has come to be regarded with considerably more judicial favor since the days when Justice Henriod dismissed it as a device which "takes people away from their work, ... harasses them without any cross-examination, ... increases legal fees and wastes manilla envelopes and scotch tape.” Lawson Supply Co. v. General Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 27 Utah 2d 84, 89, 493 P.2d 607, 611 (1972) (separate opinion of Justice Henriod). Indeed, it is now recognized that "[b]ecause a deposition is taken under oath and the deponent’s responses are relatively spontaneous, it is one of the best forms of evidence for supporting or opposing a summary judgment motion.” 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2722, at 51 (1983).

. The publication ritual, at least as practiced in Third District Court, has involved nothing more than that the summary judgment movant recite: "I move that the deposition be published." The judge perfunctorily asks if there are objections and, hearing none, recites: "The deposition is published.” The substantive motion is then argued. This ceremonial exchange between counsel and the court was omitted in this case.

. Of course, "[o]nly that portion of a deposition that would be admissible in evidence at trial may be introduced on a summary judgment motion.” 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2722, at 48-49 (1983).