Shaarille Linzy’s response to Uber Technologies’s request for summary judgment in a federal case relied on a deposition transcript from state-court litigation that didn’t include Uber as a party.Objecting, Uber argued the deposition testimony didn’t satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(8)’s requirements, because Uber wasn’t involved in the other case and the lawsuits don’t have “the same parties.”Rule 32(a)(8) says: “A deposition lawfully taken and, if required, filed in any federal — or state — court action may …