Shields v. Reddo

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that a former employee’s deposition cannot be admitted as substantive evidence when the employee was no longer employed by the defendant when the deposition was taken and the proponent has not shown that the witness is unavailable. The court concluded that the civil-procedure rule governing deposition use does not create an independent exception to the hearsay rules and affirmed exclusion of the deposition. Archer, J., dissenting, would have admitted the deposition as a procedural matter while subjecting its contents to hearsay review and would have remanded for a new trial.