In the case of In Re Injectafer Products Liability Litigation, No. 19-276 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022 Beetlestone, J.), the court addressed the propriety of the completion of deposition errata sheets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e).
In reviewing Rule 30(e), the court noted that, only “some reason” is needed to support the use of a deposition errata sheet following the completion of a deposition. As such, one word changes and other short explanations are not considered to be deficient and are allowed.
However, the court found that efforts to add into the deposition by way of an errata sheet material beyond the scope of what the witness actually testified to will be stricken as such information are not clarifications.
The court additionally noted that errata changes that are contradictory to the testimony that was completed, such as changes a “yes” answer to a “no” answer would be stricken.
It was noted by the court that while a deponent may regret certain testimony, even if a statement was made in jest, this is not a sufficient reason to alter or remove that testimony by way of an errata sheet.
Lastly, the court also noted that numerous other types of errata may be permissible as reviewed on a case by case basis. Yet, while testimony may be modified through the use of an errata sheet, the original testimony contained in the deposition transcript is to be preserved as well.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.