Short answer. Yes. Section 6 allows a deposition taken to perpetuate testimony — or even one not taken under this Rule but that would otherwise be admissible — to be used in any later action involving the same subject matter, following the standards in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 23.
What the law says
If a deposition to perpetuate testimony is taken under this Rule, or if, although not so taken, it would be admissible in evidence, it may be used in any action involving the same subject matter subsequently brought in accordance with the provisions of [S]ections 4 and 5 of Rule 23.
Rule 24, Section 6 — Use of deposition. Read the full provision →
Two paths to usability
A deposition properly taken under Rule 24 for perpetuation purposes qualifies automatically for later use once a matching action is filed, without needing to separately prove its admissibility all over again. Alternatively, even a deposition not taken under this specific Rule can still be used later if it would independently be admissible in evidence on its own terms, which covers testimony perpetuated through some other legitimate process outside Rule 24 itself.
The subject-matter link
Whichever path applies, the later action has to involve the same subject matter as the perpetuated testimony, tying the earlier deposition to the dispute it was actually meant to preserve evidence for. A perpetuated deposition taken to preserve testimony about one transaction or occurrence cannot simply be repurposed for an unrelated lawsuit that happens to be filed later by the same party.
How it's used once the case exists
Usability then follows the standards set out in Rule 23, Sections 4 and 5, meaning the perpetuated testimony is treated, for purposes of use, essentially the same way a deposition taken during an already-pending case would be treated — subject to the same rules on when a deposition may be read into evidence, used to contradict or impeach a witness, or otherwise introduced at trial in place of live testimony.
Why this matters for pre-filing perpetuation
Rule 24 exists precisely because evidence sometimes needs to be preserved before a lawsuit can be filed — a witness may be elderly, seriously ill, or about to leave the country. Section 6 is what makes that earlier effort worthwhile: without it, testimony carefully perpetuated before filing could otherwise sit unused once the actual case finally comes into existence, defeating the whole point of perpetuating it in the first place. A party who perpetuated testimony under Rule 24 but then lets years pass without filing the related action should not assume the deposition remains automatically usable indefinitely; the subject-matter link and the admissibility standards under Rule 23 still have to be satisfied at whatever later point the action is finally brought.