Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc.

Background

In preparation for trial, both sides designated portions of deposition testimony they intended to introduce. Dr. Tara Gustilo designated excerpts from a May 2023 deposition of David Hilden, M.D. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. designated additional excerpts from that deposition, excerpts from Dr. Hilden’s January 2022 deposition, and excerpts from depositions of Daniel Hoody, M.D., Jennifer Hauff, and Laura Nezworski, M.D. The parties agreed that all of these designations were part of Hennepin Healthcare System’s deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which governs testimony given on behalf of an organization.

Dr. Gustilo objected to Hennepin Healthcare System’s counter-designations. Her objections were based on her position that a party’s additional excerpts from its own Rule 30(b)(6) testimony could be introduced only when necessary to prevent the testimony offered by the other side from being taken out of context or misunderstood.

Analysis

The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32. Under Rule 32(a)(2), an opposing party may use deposition testimony at trial for any purpose. Under Rule 32(a)(6), when a party offers only part of a deposition, the opposing party may require other portions to be introduced if fairness requires them to be considered together with the offered portion. The rule also states that any party may introduce any other parts of the deposition.

The court held that Dr. Gustilo was the party offering the testimony and that she was adverse to Hennepin Healthcare System. She therefore could introduce portions of Hennepin Healthcare System’s organizational deposition for any purpose. But Hennepin Healthcare System could require her to introduce additional portions that fairness required to be considered with her excerpts. The court also held that Hennepin Healthcare System could introduce other portions of the deposition itself during its own presentation of evidence, even apart from the fairness requirement.

The court found that the additional excerpts should be considered with Dr. Gustilo’s designations. The excerpts provided further information about Hennepin Healthcare System’s concerns regarding Dr. Gustilo’s alleged workplace disruptions, Facebook activity, use of the term “China virus,” opinions about China’s involvement in the pandemic, and reports that physicians, patients, donors, or referring providers might react negatively. The court concluded that excluding the additional testimony could give the jury an incomplete or misleading impression of the concerns described in the designated excerpts.

The court rejected Dr. Gustilo’s argument that Rule 32(a)(6) limited Hennepin Healthcare System’s use of its own Rule 30(b)(6) testimony to excerpts needed for context or to prevent misunderstanding. The court explained that the rule’s two clauses serve different purposes: the first allows an adverse party to require related excerpts during the offering party’s case, while the second allows any party to introduce other excerpts during its own case.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Dr. Gustilo’s objections to Hennepin Healthcare System’s designations of its own Rule 30(b)(6) testimony. Dr. Gustilo may forgo offering her deposition designations and use live testimony instead, but if she uses the designations, she must also offer Hennepin Healthcare System’s counter-designations that should be considered with them. The court also stated that Hennepin Healthcare System may introduce its counter-designations during its own case. This order addressed the use of deposition testimony at trial; it did not decide the underlying claims.