Substitution of parties does not affect the right to use depositions previously taken; and when an action has been brought in any court of the United States or of any state 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 Nebraska Evidence Rules.
Neb. Sup. Ct. R. 6-332
COMMENTS TO RULE 32
32(a)(3) creates an exception to the hearsay rule. In other words, a deposition does not have to satisfy the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-804(2)(a) to be admissible under this subdivision. See Walton v. Patil, 279 Neb. 974, 984, 783 N.W.2d 438, 446 (2010). Under subdivision (3)(B), the witness must be at least 100 miles away in order to use the deposition because Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1227 establishes 100 miles as the maximum distance a witness must ordinarily travel for a civil trial. Subdivision (3)(E) allows use of a deposition under exceptional circumstances; under subdivision (3)(F) the court may authorize use of the deposition in the absence of exceptional circumstances if the application is made before the deposition is taken.
32(d) The rule includes an objection to interpretation as one that may be raised by a motion to suppress the deposition. The objection can only be raised if a request to review the deposition was made pursuant to Rule 30(e)(1). The deponent may correct alleged errors in interpretation by signing a statement listing the changes and the reasons for them pursuant to Rule 30(e)(1). The errors, however, may be so extensive that the deposition is inherently inaccurate. In that case, the deponent may file a motion to suppress the deposition in its entirety. See Rule 30(e)(3). So too may an opposing party. An opposing party may also file a motion to suppress the deposition in part on the ground that there were errors in interpreting a limited but material part of the deposition and those errors render that part inherently inaccurate. If the court suppresses a deposition in whole or in part, the court may order the deposition to be retaken in whole or in part.
It should be noted that the rule requires the motion to be filed promptly. A motion may be untimely if the party failed to act with reasonable diligence in obtaining a transcript or recording of the deposition or in reviewing the transcript or recording.