Substitution of parties pursuant to Rule 25 does not affect the right to use depositions previously taken; and, when an action in any court of the United States or of any state has been dismissed and another action involving the same subject matter is afterward brought between the same parties or their representatives or successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken in the former action may be used in the latter as if originally taken therefor. A deposition previously taken may also be used as permitted by the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.
Ark. R. Civ. P. 32
Reporter's Notes to Rule 32:
1. With the exception of minor wording changes necessary to adapt FRCP 32 to state practice, Rule 32 is essentially the same as the Federal Rule. This rule tracks Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-348 and 28-354 (Repl. 1962) and does not work any significant changes in Arkansas practice.
2. Section (c) of FRCP 32 was abrogated in 1972 and the Federal Rules of Evidence now control the effect of taking or using depositions in federal courts. This section is also omitted from Rule 32 as the Uniform Rules of Evidence adopted in this State also control on this same question.
Additions to Reporter's Notes, 1984 Amendments: Rule 32(a)(1) is amended to broaden the uses of depositions at trial beyond impeachment by permitting their use for any purpose permitted by the evidence rules.
Addition to Reporter's Note, 1989 Amendment: As initially adopted, the second paragraph of Rule 32(a)(4) provided that a prior action must have been dismissed before depositions taken for use in it could be used in a subsequent action. The 1989 amendment permits the use of a deposition from a prior action to the extent allowed by the Rules of Evidence. The corresponding federal rule was so amended in 1980. In addition, the 1989 amendment eliminates the requirement that a deposition taken in a prior action must have been filed in order for it to be used in a subsequent action. This change is consistent with Rule 5(c), which, as amended in 1984, does not require that depositions be filed as a matter of course.
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 1997 Amendment: Subdivision (a)(3) has been amended by adding a new paragraph that includes not only the substance of provisions formerly found in Rule 30(b)(2), but also new language dealing with the situation in which a party who receives minimal notice of a deposition is unable to obtain a court ruling on a motion for protective order seeking to delay or change the place of the deposition. Ordinarily, a party does not obtain protection merely by the filing of a motion under Rule 26(c); any such protection is dependent upon the court's ruling. Under the revision, a party receiving less than 11 days' notice of a deposition can, provided that its motion for a protective order is filed promptly, be spared the risks resulting from nonattendance at the deposition held before its motion is ruled upon. Although the revision covers only the risk that the deposition could be used against the non-appearing movant, it should also follow that, when the proposed deponent is the movant, the deponent would have "just cause" for failing to appear for purposes of Rule 37(d)(1). Inclusion of this provision is not intended to signify that 11 days' notice is the minimum advance notice for all depositions or that greater than 10 days should necessarily be deemed sufficient in all situations.
Former subdivision (c) has been redesignated as subdivision (d), without change, and a new subdivision (c) added to reflect the increased opportunities for video and audio recording of depositions under revised Rule 30. Under the new provision, a party may offer deposition testimony in any of the forms authorized under Rule 30(b) but, if offering it in a nonstenographic form, must provide the court with a transcript of the portions so offered. On request of any party in a jury trial, deposition testimony offered other than for impeachment purposes is to be presented in a nonstenographic form if available, unless the court directs otherwise.
Addition to Reporter's Notes, 1998 Amendment: Subdivision (c) requires that the court be furnished with a transcript of any deposition testimony presented at trial in nonstenographic form. It was not clear, however, whether the transcript had to be certified by the officer before whom the deposition was taken. If that were so, the rule would as a practical matter require the presence of a court reporter at video depositions; under Section 9 of the rules providing for certification of court reporters, 'transcripts ... will be accepted only if they are certified by a court reporter who holds a valid certificate under this Rule.' Such a result would be at odds with Rule 30(b), which contemplates depositions taken by nonstenographic means only. Accordingly, a new second sentence has been added to Rule 32(c) making plain that the transcript must be prepared by a certified court reporter from the audio or video tape recording of the deposition, thereby ensuring that the transcript accurately reflects what is on the tape offered at trial.