§30.7 Significant Authorities

JurisdictionWashington

§30.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

Significant authorities, arranged by jurisdiction, are discussed below.

(1)Washington

Few Washington appellate decisions discuss depositions, for the obvious reason that trial court discovery decisions rarely reach an appellate court for review. The following Washington decisions, however, address issues regarding depositions.

A deposition taken in another action was held to be admissible. In re Estate of Foster, 55 Wn.App. 545, 779 P.2d 272 (1989), review denied sub nom. Koehler v. Fibreboard Corp., 114 Wn.2d 1004 (1990).

A videotape recording clearly falls within the meaning of "recorded by other than stenographic means" under CR 30(b)(4). State v. Hewett, 86 Wn.2d 487, 545 P.2d 1201 (1976).

If the deponent adds to a deposition after it has been taken and fails to state the reasons for doing so, the addition will not be considered, as it violates CR 30(e). Young v. Grp. Health Coop. ofPuget Sound, 85 Wn.2d 332, 534 P.2d 1349 (1975).

In a malpractice action, deposition questions of a treating physician are proper regardless whether they call for an expression of opinion or fact. Estate of May v. Zorman, 5 Wn.App. 368, 487 P.2d 270 (1971).

When the plaintiffs' attorney did not object before or during a discovery deposition to allegedly unresponsive answers of the deponent, the objections were waived and the unresponsive answers were properly admitted into evidence at trial after the plaintiffs had been permitted to read selected portions of the deposition transcript. Symes v. Teagle, 67 Wn.2d 867, 410P.2d594 (1966); Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Stotsky, 194 Wash. 246, 77P.2d990 (1938).

Both the originally transcribed testimony and the "corrected" testimony are admissible as substantive evidence. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Rankin, 59 Wn.2d 288, 367P.2d835 (1962).

Objections are waived if not made when defects in the questions could have been cured. Ford v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 50 Wn.2d 832, 315P.2d299 (1957).

In the absence of any evidence of tampering or alteration, the failure by the officer taking the deposition to secure it in an envelope as required by CR 30(f)( 1) would not preclude its admission as evidence. Kirkpatrick v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 48 Wn.2d 51, 290P.2d979 (1955).

Statutes relating to the taking of depositions are to be liberally construed. Newsom v. W. Wind Corp., 41 Wn.2d 375, 249 P.2d 367 (1952); Moore v. Keesey, 26 Wn.2d 31, 173 P.2d 130 (1946); Rawsthorn v. Rawsthorn, 198 Wash. 471, 88 P.2d 847 (1939).

A party defending a deposition may not unilaterally determine the relevance of evidence or the scope of the deposition. Thus, instructions not to answer deposition questions based on claimed irrelevance are improper. Johnson v. Jones, 91 Wn.App. 127, 134, 955 P.2d 826 (1998), review denied sub nom. State v. Mermis, 156 Wn.2d 1019 (2006) (imposition of sanctions against attorney affirmed).

Flower v. T.R.A. Industries, Inc., 127 Wn.App. 13, 111P.3d1192 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1030 (2006), is a useful authority on a number of issues arising under CR 30(b)(6). These include the following propositions:

(1)A corporation must prepare witnesses designated under CR 30(b)(6) so that they may give complete, knowledgeable, and noninvasive answers on behalf of the corporation. Id. at 39, 41.

Caveat: The Court of Appeals in Flower stated that Washington law has not clearly decided whether a corporation is "absolutely bound" by
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT