## Facts

- Monte L. Tatman was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer driven by Bobby Wayne Collins near Winfield, West Virginia on April 15, 1986.
- Tatman received treatment from Dr. Joseph Amico for neck, back, shoulder, and head injuries.
- Nearly a year later, Tatman suffered a cerebral aneurysm and died on March 12, 1987 after it ruptured.
- Tatman’s estate sued Collins and his employer, H & T Truck Services, Inc., asserting the collision caused blood-pressure changes that led to the aneurysm rupture.
- During discovery, defendants deposed Dr. Amico, who opined there was a causal connection between the collision injuries and the aneurysm rupture.
- Before trial, Dr. Amico could not appear live due to a scheduling conflict; he was more than 100 miles from the Charleston, West Virginia courthouse (trial site), though within 100 miles of the district’s boundary.
- The district court excluded Dr. Amico’s deposition, reasoning it was taken only for discovery and that Dr. Amico was not “unavailable” under the 100-mile provision as measured from the district boundary.
- The court also struck another physician’s expert testimony because it relied substantially on Dr. Amico’s excluded deposition.

## Issues

1. Whether a properly noticed deposition may be excluded at trial solely because it was taken for discovery rather than for use as trial evidence.
2. Whether Rule 32’s “more than 100 miles from the place of trial” unavailability requirement is measured from the courthouse (trial location) or from the geographic border of the federal judicial district.
3. Whether excluding the deposition required striking related expert testimony and justified a directed verdict against the wrongful-death claim.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held Rule 32 does not distinguish between “discovery” and “trial” depositions; a duly noticed deposition may be used at trial if Rule 32’s conditions are met and the evidence is otherwise admissible.
- The court held the 100-mile distance in Rule 32(a)(3)(B) (now Rule 32(a)(4)(B)) is measured from the courthouse where trial is held, not from the district’s borders.
- Because Dr. Amico was more than 100 miles from the courthouse and his absence was not procured by the offering party, the deposition should have been admitted.
- The erroneous exclusion of Dr. Amico’s deposition also invalidated the striking of dependent expert testimony and undermined the directed verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A deposition taken with proper notice and an opportunity for all parties to attend may be used at trial under Rule 32, subject to the rules of evidence; it cannot be excluded solely because it was originally taken for discovery.
- Under Rule 32(a)(4)(B), a witness is “unavailable” when the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of trial (the courthouse), unless the proponent procured the absence.
- When a key causation deposition is wrongly excluded, related expert opinions based on that deposition may not be struck on that basis, and resulting dispositive rulings may require reversal.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court misapplied Rule 32 by treating the deposition as “discovery only” and by measuring the 100-mile unavailability limit from the district boundary rather than the courthouse, errors that prevented the plaintiff from presenting essential causation evidence.


Tatman v. Collins, 938 F.2d 509 (4th Cir. 1991)