ORDER

GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's objections to the Plaintiffs' use of the discovery deposition of Carsten Goessl1 rather than his de bene esse deposition. (Doc. 198). The Court has heard the arguments of the parties and reviewed the cases submitted by the Defendant: Manley v. AmBase Corp., 337 F.3d 237 (2d Cir. 2003) and Griffin v. Foley, 542 F.2d 209 (7th Cir. 2008). Unfortunately, those cases were not particularly helpful, as they involved scenarios where both depositions were taken in the same case, rather than, as here, the first being taken in the MDL case and the second being taken in a New Jersey state proceeding.

However, in both cases the appellate courts noted that Federal Rule of Evidence 32(a), which permits the use of deposition testimony under certain circumstances, makes no distinction between depositions taken for discovery and those taken for use at trial. And in this case, unlike the situations in Manley and Griffin, there is no obvious unfairness in allowing the playing or reading of Goessl's discovery deposition rather than his de bene esse deposition. Further, the Plaintiffs would not be short-circuiting a procedure established by this Court if they were to utilize the discovery deposition rather than the New Jersey de bene esse deposition. Accordingly, the Defendant's objection is overruled, and the Plaintiff will be permitted to utilize Goessl's discovery deposition in its case in chief.

DONE and ORDERED