Last amended July 1, 1979 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 32 governs when a deposition may be used at trial or a hearing — always to impeach the deponent, for any purpose against a party or a designated organizational witness, and for any purpose against any witness the court finds unavailable under the rules of evidence, except that an expert's discovery deposition may be used only to impeach — and sets separate, differing rules for when objections to notice, to the presiding officer's qualifications, and to the manner of taking the deposition are waived if not raised promptly.
32.01Use of Depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof in accordance with any of the following provisions:
1Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as a witness.
2The deposition of a party or of anyone who at the time of taking the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent, or a person designated under Rule 30.02 (6) or 31.01 to testify on behalf of a public or private corporation, partnership or association, governmental agency or individual proprietorship which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.
3The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds that the witness is "unavailable" as defined by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(a). But depositions of experts taken pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26.02 (4) may not be used at trial except to impeach in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32.01 (1).
4If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. Substitution of parties pursuant to Rule 25 does not affect the right to use depositions previously taken. When an action in any court of Tennessee, of the United States, or of any other state has been dismissed and an action involving the same subject matter is afterwards brought, all depositions lawfully taken in the former action may be used in the latter against any party who has both an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony at the prior deposition by direct, cross, or redirect examination. A deposition previously taken may also be used as permitted by the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
32.02Objections to Admissibility. Subject to the provisions of Rule 28.02 and Rule 32.04(3), objection may be made at the trial or hearing to receiving in evidence any deposition or part thereof for any reason which would require the exclusion of the evidence if the witness were then present and testifying.
32.03Effect of Taking or Using Depositions. A party does not make a person the party's own witness for any purpose by taking the person's deposition. The introduction in evidence of the deposition or any part thereof for any purpose other than that of contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the witness of the party introducing the deposition, but this shall not apply to the use by an adverse party of a deposition under Rule 32.01(2). At the trial or hearing any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in a deposition whether introduced by that party or by any other party.
32.04Effect of Errors and Irregularities in Depositions.
1As to Notice. All errors and irregularities in the notice for taking a deposition are waived unless written objection is promptly served upon the party giving the notice.
2As to Disqualification of Officer. Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.
3As to Taking of Deposition.
AObjections to the competency of a witness or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony are not waived by failure to make them before or during the taking of the deposition, unless the ground of the objection is one which might have been obviated or removed if presented at that time.
BErrors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the deposition, in the form of the questions or answers, in the oath or affirmation, or in the conduct of parties, and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented, are waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.
CObjections to the form of written questions submitted under Rule 31 are waived unless served in writing upon the party propounding them within the time allowed for serving the succeeding cross or other questions and within 5 days after service of the last questions authorized.
4As to Completion and Return of Deposition. Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified, sealed, indorsed, transmitted, filed, or otherwise dealt with by the officer under Rules 30 and 31 are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part thereof is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is, or with due diligence might have been, ascertained.
Advisory Commission Comments
Advisory Commission Comments.
This Rule is designed to bring together rules relating to the timing and method of presentation of objections based on errors and irregularities in depositions.
32.01: The added language [in 1984] in Rule 32.01(3)(D), dispensing with the necessity of a trial subpoena for deponents exempt under revised Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-9-101, changes the requirement under prior law, explained in Stokes v. Leung, 651 S.W.2d 704, 710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). [1984.] The new sentence [in 1984] inserted at the end of 32.01(3) protects the trial lawyer who takes an opposing expert's discovery deposition by court order or by agreement from being confronted with the deposition as substantive proof at trial. Tactically the discovering lawyer wants to find out everything the expert intends to say at trial and conducts a very open inquiry, expecting many unfavorable answers; there is no cross-examination in the trial sense. It would be unfair to plaintiffs and defendants alike to have such a deposition admitted as former testimony on the ground that the deponent is unavailable, whether dead, outside the jurisdiction, or more than one hundred miles from the courtroom. If the party who hired the expert wants to take a deposition for proof, of course, that can be accomplished by notice or agreement. The present amendment applies only to a discovery deposition of the adversary's expert. [1984.]
The Commission recommends [in 1987] adding language to the last paragraph of Rule 32.01 to make the former testimony hearsay exception work the same way with depositions in civil actions as it does with preliminary hearing transcripts in a criminal prosecution with the advent of State v. Causby, 706 S.W.2d 628 (Tenn. 1986). Causby, at page 631, adopts F.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) insofar as it admits former testimony against a person who at the prior hearing "'had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony ....'" The previous deposition rule appears to limit substantive use of depositions - the most common type of former testimony - to subsequent lawsuits involving the "same parties," thereby imposing a strict identity of parties requirement rejected by the Supreme Court in Causby. [1987.] The added sentence [in 1990] at the end of Rule 32.01 is needed to conform the Rules of Civil Procedure to the Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 804(b)(1), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, depositions may be admissible as former testimony even though taken in an action other than one dismissed before the present suit was filed. [1990.]
Advisory Commission Comments [2001].
Rule 32.01(3) describes when a deposition can be used "for proof" under the former testimony hearsay exception. Except with respect to some experts, a deposition is admissible as substantive evidence at trial if the deponent is unavailable to give live testimony.
Advisory Commission Comments [2004].
Rule 32.01(4) is conformed to the rule of completeness in Evidence Rule 106.
Advisory Commission Comments [2006].
The new language in Rule 32.01(3) incorporates by cross-reference all of the unavailability grounds listed in Evidence Rule 804(a). That list includes deponents who are more than 100 miles from the courthouse on trial day. The more restrictive provision for discovery depositions of experts is retained.
Amendment History
As amended July 1, 1979.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 32.01 allows any part or all of a deposition, so far as it would be admissible under the Tennessee Rules of Evidence, to be used against a party who was present, represented, or had reasonable notice of the deposition. Any deposition may be used by any party to contradict or impeach the deponent's testimony as a witness. The deposition of a party, or of someone who was an officer, director, or managing agent of a party, or a person designated to testify on a party's behalf under Rule 30.02(6) or 31.01, may be used by an adverse party for any purpose. The deposition of any witness, party or not, may be used for any purpose if the court finds the witness "unavailable" under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(a) — except that a discovery deposition of an expert witness taken under Rule 26.02(4) cannot be used at trial except to impeach, even if the expert later becomes unavailable. If only part of a deposition is offered, an adverse party can require that any other part be introduced at the same time if fairness calls for it, substituting parties under Rule 25 does not affect the right to use depositions already taken, and depositions lawfully taken in a dismissed action can be used in a later action on the same subject matter against a party who had a similar opportunity and motive to develop the testimony the first time.
Rule 32.02 lets a party object at trial or a hearing to receiving a deposition, or part of one, in evidence on any ground that would require excluding the evidence if the witness were present and testifying. Rule 32.03 makes clear that taking someone's deposition does not make that person the deposing party's own witness, though introducing the deposition for a purpose other than impeachment does make the deponent the introducing party's witness — except when an adverse party introduces a party's own deposition under Rule 32.01(2) — and any party may rebut relevant evidence a deposition contains, regardless of who introduced it.
Rule 32.04 sets separate rules for when different kinds of objections are waived. An objection to the notice for taking a deposition is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party who gave the notice. An objection to the qualifications of the officer taking the deposition is waived unless raised before the deposition begins or as soon afterward as the disqualification is discovered or reasonably could have been. Objections to a witness's competency, or to the competency, relevance, or materiality of testimony, are not waived by silence during the deposition unless the objection's ground could have been fixed if raised at the time — but errors in the manner of taking the deposition itself, in the form of a question or answer, in the oath, or in a party's conduct, are waived unless promptly raised during the deposition, since those defects could have been corrected on the spot. Objections to the form of written questions under Rule 31 must be served in writing within the time allowed for the next round of questions and within five days after the last questions are served. Finally, errors in how the deposition is transcribed, signed, certified, or filed are waived unless a motion to suppress is made with reasonable promptness after the defect is or should have been discovered.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a deposition be used at trial against someone who is not a party?
Yes, but only in limited circumstances. Rule 32.01 allows any witness's deposition to be used to impeach that witness, and lets it be used for any purpose if the court finds the witness "unavailable" as defined by Tennessee Rule of Evidence 804(a).
Can a discovery deposition of an expert be used as substantive trial testimony?
No, except to impeach. Rule 32.01 specifically excludes a discovery deposition taken of an expert witness under Rule 26.02(4) from substantive use at trial, even if the expert becomes unavailable to testify in person.
What kinds of deposition objections are waived if I do not raise them right away?
Rule 32.04 waives objections to the deposition notice, to the officer's qualifications, and to errors in how the deposition itself was conducted — such as the form of a question — unless they are raised promptly. Objections to a witness's competency or to the relevance of testimony, by contrast, are not waived by silence unless the problem could have been fixed at the time.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 32). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as:use of depositions at trialunavailable witnesswaiver of deposition objections
Advisory Commission Comments.
This Rule is designed to bring together rules relating to the timing and method of presentation of objections based on errors and irregularities in depositions.
32.01: The added language [in 1984] in Rule 32.01(3)(D), dispensing with the necessity of a trial subpoena for deponents exempt under revised Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-9-101, changes the requirement under prior law, explained in Stokes v. Leung, 651 S.W.2d 704, 710 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982). [1984.] The new sentence [in 1984] inserted at the end of 32.01(3) protects the trial lawyer who takes an opposing expert's discovery deposition by court order or by agreement from being confronted with the deposition as substantive proof at trial. Tactically the discovering lawyer wants to find out everything the expert intends to say at trial and conducts a very open inquiry, expecting many unfavorable answers; there is no cross-examination in the trial sense. It would be unfair to plaintiffs and defendants alike to have such a deposition admitted as former testimony on the ground that the deponent is unavailable, whether dead, outside the jurisdiction, or more than one hundred miles from the courtroom. If the party who hired the expert wants to take a deposition for proof, of course, that can be accomplished by notice or agreement. The present amendment applies only to a discovery deposition of the adversary's expert. [1984.]
The Commission recommends [in 1987] adding language to the last paragraph of Rule 32.01 to make the former testimony hearsay exception work the same way with depositions in civil actions as it does with preliminary hearing transcripts in a criminal prosecution with the advent of State v. Causby, 706 S.W.2d 628 (Tenn. 1986). Causby, at page 631, adopts F.R.Evid. 804(b)(1) insofar as it admits former testimony against a person who at the prior hearing "'had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony ....'" The previous deposition rule appears to limit substantive use of depositions - the most common type of former testimony - to subsequent lawsuits involving the "same parties," thereby imposing a strict identity of parties requirement rejected by the Supreme Court in Causby. [1987.] The added sentence [in 1990] at the end of Rule 32.01 is needed to conform the Rules of Civil Procedure to the Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 804(b)(1), Tennessee Rules of Evidence, depositions may be admissible as former testimony even though taken in an action other than one dismissed before the present suit was filed. [1990.]