Short answer. It depends on the type of defect. Section 29 requires prompt objection for irregularities in notice, officer disqualification, oral-examination conduct, and preparation or certification defects, or they are waived — but objections to a witness's competency or the relevancy of testimony are not waived even if you say nothing during the deposition.
What the law says
Objections to the competency of a witness or 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.
Rule 23, Section 29 — Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions. Read the full provision →
The general pattern: promptness or waiver
Errors in the notice for taking a deposition are waived absent a prompt written objection served on the noticing party. Objection to the officer's disqualification is waived unless made before the deposition begins, or as soon after as the disqualification becomes known or discoverable with reasonable diligence. Errors in the manner of oral examination are waived unless objected to at the taking. And defects in preparation, signing, certifying, or filing are waived absent a reasonably prompt motion to suppress.
The exception for competency and relevancy
Objections to a witness's competency, or to the competency, relevancy, or materiality of testimony, are treated differently — they are not waived just because no one objected before or during the deposition, unless the specific ground could have been fixed had it been raised at the time. This exception preserves a party's ability to challenge testimony's admissibility at trial itself, even after having let the deposition proceed without interruption on that particular point.
Why the rule splits this way
Defects in process — notice, officer qualification, examination conduct, form, certification — are typically the kind a party could correct on the spot if flagged promptly, so silence is read as acceptance. Competency and relevancy, by contrast, go to whether the evidence should be considered at all, a question better resolved by the court reviewing the full record rather than forced into a snap objection during the deposition.
The practical takeaway
A party who spots a procedural problem during a deposition should object on the record right away. Substantive competency or relevancy concerns, on the other hand, can generally be saved for later without fear of having waived them by staying silent at the deposition itself. Sorting a given objection into the right category — procedural versus substantive — is the key first step in figuring out whether it needed to be raised on the spot.
Related provisions
- Rule 23, Section 29 — Effect of errors and irregularities in depositions
- Rule 23, Section 13 — Disqualification by interest
- Rule 23, Section 19 — Submission to witness; changes; signing