§28.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§28.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1)Washington

Evidence obtained through a deposition conducted pursuant to a commission need not be excluded under CR 28(b) because it was unsworn. Rakhshan v. Whatcom County, 149 Wn.App. 1063, No. 83410-5, 2009 WL 1110885, at *3 (Apr. 27, 2009;, review denied,167 Wn.2d 1011 (2009) (affirming trial court's denial of motion to strike unsworn deposition testimony obtained in response to letters rogatory).

CR 28 should be construed in conjunction with other statutes concerning the taking of depositions, including CR 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32. Symes v. Teagle,67 Wn.2d 867, 874, 410 P.2d 594 (1966).

A Washington court may issue a "commission" naming anyone in whom it has confidence to take a deposition. The court may appoint a resident of this state or of a foreign state to take a deposition out of state. Statutes relating to taking depositions should be liberally construed. Moore v. Keesey,26 Wn.2d 31, 39, 173 P.2d 130 (1946).

The issuance of a commission does not create authority to compel the attendance of witnesses outside the state at examinations held within the state. State ex rel. Onishi v. Superior Court,30 Wn.2d 348, 356, 191 P.2d 703 (1948) (rules governing depositions by commission do not allow persons outside of the state of Washington to be compelled to give testimony within the state of Washington)

The superior court has authority under RCW 2.28.010 to exercise control over a court reporter who is "significantly connected" with litigation pendingin that county even if the deposition is taken elsewhere. Easterday v. S. Colum. BasinIrrig. Dist.,49 Wn.App. 746, 749,745 P.2d 1322 (1987) (trial court had jurisdiction over court reporter who knew action was pending in Grant County Superior Court when assignment to transcribe deposition was accepted).

(2)Federal

Prior to the amendment adding the last sentence to Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(a), a federal district court held that a party could avoid the necessity of taking a deposition before an "officer" by using electronic means. Marlboro Prods. Corp. v. N. Am. Phillips Corp., 55 F.R.D. 487, 489-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (approving electronic recording of deposition from which typewritten transcript would be made and then submitted to witness for review and signing).

The federal discovery rules, including Fed. R. Civ. P. 28, should be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of actions. Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. N.C Pulp Co.,25 F Supp. 596, 597 (D. Del. 1938).

FED .R. CIV. P. 28 should be construed to facilitate the efficient and economic administration of justice while preserving that level of accuracy and integrity which has come to be associated with an independent stenographic record. United States v. Hargro, 104 F.R.D. 451, 452 (N.D. Ga. 1984) (granting motion allowing defendant to take and record depositions through use of three separate tape recording devices because she was unable to pay cost of professional court reporter).

...