- 32 -
testify, and, thus, there is no basis to claim his
unavailability on the ground that he persisted in refusing
to testify in the face of an order of the Court to do so.
Moreover, respondent asserts that, even if the Court finds
that Mr. London is unavailable, his deposition in the
wrongful levy suit is not the type of former testimony
described by rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Evidence because the purpose of the deposition was to
investigate Mrs. London's claim of an interest in two
brokerage accounts, neither of which was included as an
asset in the net worth statement used in these cases.
Notwithstanding respondent's objection to the
introduction of the entire deposition into evidence,
respondent proffered approximately 11 pages of the
deposition as an admission by a party opponent. In
response, petitioners argue that if this portion of the
deposition is accepted into evidence, then rule 106 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence requires the receipt of the
entire deposition into evidence on the ground that the
entire deposition "ought in fairness to be considered
contemporaneously with" the portion introduced by
respondent.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011