Carroll v. Trump
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-10016
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Carroll v. Trump, Judge Kaplan ruled on deposition-designation objections, sustaining some, overruling others, and deferring one for trial.
Jean Carroll and Donald J. Trump, whose objections and proposed uses of portions of Trump’s deposition were addressed.
What happened
In Carroll v. Trump, the court addressed the parties’ objections to portions of Donald J. Trump’s deposition that had been designated for use in the case.
The court sustained Jean Carroll’s objections to several of Trump’s counter-designations because they did not comply with the rule allowing additional deposition testimony when needed for fairness and completeness. It overruled other objections where the additional testimony served that purpose, and one objection was deferred for possible consideration at trial.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan also ruled that objections on grounds other than completeness could be renewed at trial in the circumstances described in the order. This order addressed deposition evidence and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Carroll v. Trump · No. 1:22-cv-10016
- Lewis Kaplan
- Apr. 25, 2023
Background
The parties designated portions of Donald J. Trump’s October 19, 2022 deposition for possible use at trial. They also submitted objections and counter-designations concerning additional portions of that deposition. The order addresses the objections listed in an attached schedule.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(6) allows an opposing party to require additional portions of a deposition when fairness requires them to be considered with the portion already offered. The court explained that the rule is intended to prevent selective use of deposition testimony that could create a misleading impression. The court rejected Trump’s argument that the rule broadly allows a party to introduce any other portions of a deposition merely because the opposing party designated some testimony.
Rulings
The schedule marks the objection to the designation of pages 38:4–38:20 as “deferred.” The court explained that “deferred” means it reserved decision until the objection is raised, if it is raised, by counsel at trial.
As to Carroll’s objections to Trump’s counter-designations, the court sustained the objections it found inadmissible under Rule 32(a)(6). It overruled objections where the counter-designations served the interest of completeness and therefore were permitted under that rule. For the objections marked “overruled” on grounds other than Rule 32(a)(6), the court stated that the basis for those objections was not clear from the parties’ submissions. Those objections were therefore overruled subject to renewal at trial on the non-completeness grounds identified in the schedule.
Effect of the order
This was an evidentiary order concerning which portions of a deposition could be used under the circumstances addressed by the parties. It did not resolve the underlying claims between Carroll and Trump.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.