On December 9, 2014, Judge Godbey issued an Order in Minka Lighting v. Craftmade International (available here) addressing a motion to strike the errata sheet for a deposition. The errata sheet at issue contained 32 corrections to the deposition testimony, 22 of which were at issue with the motion to strike. Judge Godbey first noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) permits errata sheets. Judge Godbey then summarized the law on errata sheets as follows:
“The Fifth Circuit has not addressed the scope of permissible substantive corrections to a deposition under Rule 30(e). Other circuit courts and federal district courts, including courts within the Fifth Circuit, have varied in their approaches to allowing deposition corrections pursuant to Rule 30(e).” Poole v. Gorthon Lines AB, 908 F. Supp. 2d 778, 785 (W.D. La. 2012). “Under the majority approach, a witness is free to make changes of ‘substance,’ not only changing but even contradicting the transcript. Under this approach, ‘[i]t is not necessary for the court to examine the sufficiency, reasonableness, or legitimacy of the reasons.’” E.E.O.C. v. J.H. Walker, Inc., 2007 WL 172626, at *11 (S.D. Tex. 2007)(quoting Foutz v. Town of Vinton, Virginia, 211 F.R.D. 293, 296 (W.D. Va. 2002)). District courts in the Fifth Circuit have generally adopted the majority “broad interpretation” of Rule 30(e). See, e.g., Poole, 908 F. Supp. 2d at 787 (“This court will apply a broad interpretation of Rule 30(e).”); Betts v. Gen. Motors Corp., 2008 WL 2789524, at *2 (N.D. Miss. 2008) (“The court is persuaded by the fact that the majority of federal courts addressing this Rule 30(e) issue have interpreted the language of the rules of federal civil procedure as literally as possible and have allowed any form of change to a deposition.”); Reilly v. TXU Corp., 230 F.R.D. 486, 490 (N.D. Tex. 2005) (Ramirez, M.J.) (“After thorough consideration of the different approaches courts have used in considering motions to strike substantive deposition changes, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the cases applying a broad interpretation of Rule 30(e).”) (cited with approval by Atlin v. Mendes, 2009 WL 306173, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 2009)).
Given this authority, Judge Godbey determined not to strike the errata sheet at issue, noting that it is the trier of fact, not the Court, that determines the credibility and the weight of the evidence. Nor would the Court characterize the errata sheet as a sham affidavit.
As an alternative, the moving party requested that the deposition be reopened. This request was also denied: “The Court finds the use of the original deposition testimony as impeachment evidence a sufficient remedy on these facts, and denies the request.”