Short answer. Yes, generally it does. Introducing a deposition, or part of it, in evidence for a purpose other than contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes that deponent the witness of the party who introduced it, with a specific exception carved out for how an adverse party may use it instead.
What the law says
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
Rule 23, Section 8 — Effect of using depositions. Read the full provision →
The general rule on introducing depositions
While merely taking a deposition does not by itself make the deponent the deposing party's witness, actually introducing that same deposition into evidence has a genuinely different legal effect. The introduction in evidence of the deposition, or any part thereof, for any purpose other than contradicting or impeaching the deponent makes the deponent the witness of the party introducing the deposition into the proceedings.
What triggers this consequence
The key factor triggering this particular consequence is the actual purpose behind the introduction. If the deposition is introduced specifically to contradict or impeach the deponent, that particular kind of use does not carry this consequence at all. But if it is instead introduced for any other purpose — for instance, to affirmatively establish some fact in the introducing party's own favor — the deponent then becomes that party's witness as a result.
The exception for an adverse party's use
The rule then carves out a genuine exception: this consequence shall not apply to the use by an adverse party of a deposition. So the ordinary rule making the deponent the introducing party's witness ends up applying quite differently depending on whether the party doing the introducing happens to be the adverse party, rather than a party using their own supportive deposition offensively.
Why the distinction between purposes matters
The rule effectively distinguishes between offensively using a deposition to build one's own affirmative case, and instead using it defensively to attack a deponent's credibility. Only the former use carries the consequence of adopting the deponent as one's own witness, reflecting the reality that impeachment or contradiction is a fundamentally different kind of use than simply, affirmatively relying on the deponent's own account of events. This distinction matters practically because a party who inadvertently adopts an opponent's deponent as their own witness may find themselves bound by testimony they did not fully control or anticipate. Counsel deciding whether and how to introduce a deposition should weigh this consequence carefully before offering it into evidence for a purpose beyond contradiction or impeachment.
Related provisions
- Rule 23, Section 8 — Effect of using depositions
- Rule 23, Section 7 — Effect of taking depositions
- Rule 23, Section 9 — Rebutting deposition