I would caution anyone who reads depositions that what is contained in them often does not reach the level of being considered by a court as evidence - and it cannot be used in any other cases until it is.
You'll note from the text that counsel for the plaintiff objects to almost every question based on "form" yet the witness provides an answer.
Each and every objection provides an opportunity to require the court to rule as to whether or not the response to the question can be admitted as evidence. It's purely procedural and a common tactic in depositions when one side has unlimited resources.
Tough concept to deal with - depositions are taken under oath, therefore what is in them is supposed to be the truth, but unless and until a court has dealt with any objections and ruled them to be evidence, they aren't.
I'm not an attorney and this is not legal advice - - Moose as soon as depositions are sworn to and entered into evidence they are indeed "evidence." On this same subject I would caution those who have taken or given depositions to make sure they are sworn to. Even if they are entered into evidence an unscrupulous opposing attorney can take advantage of those acting pro-se by making a motion to dismiss due to "a lack of evidence." If your case has no sworn affidavit of any sort, no matter how much "evidence" you think you have given the court your case can be dismissed for lack of evidence if none of your evidence is sworn to. Additionally you can be forced to pay legal fees for an opposing lawyer exploiting this dubious angle.
Ed Cage | firstname.lastname@example.org