ORDER AND REASONS

SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge.

Defendant Chet Morrison Well Services, LLC and Chet Morrison Contractors (collectively, "Chet Morrison") moves to exclude as inadmissible hearsay the deposition testimony of John Dale Williams.

Williams, who Chet Morrison represents will testify at trial,1 is not a party to this litigation and was not designated as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Chet Morrison. Moreover, Williams was not employed by Chet Morrison at the time of his deposition.2 Thus, his testimony is not admissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3) (allowing adverse party to "use for any purpose the deposition of a party or anyone who, when deposed, was the party's officer, director, managing agent, or designee under Rule 30(b)(6)"), or Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) (excluding statements of an agent or employee of a party-opponent made while the agency relationship existed from the definition of hearsay). See, e.g., Abbot Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 743 F.Supp. 762, 769 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (noting that depositions of witnesses who will testify live and who were not officers, directors, managing agents, or corporate designees of a party when deposed are admissible only for impeachment purposes).3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion, with two provisos: (1) if Williams's trial testimony is inconsistent with his deposition testimony, any party may introduce his deposition to impeach his trial testimony, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2); and

(2) should Williams fail to testify at trial, any party may seek to introduce his deposition testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(4).