Gotta v. Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated

Opinion

WO

Samantha Gotta, et al., No. CV-20-01865-PHX-GMS

Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

Stantec Consulting Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants. Pending before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 60). Upon consideration, the motion is denied. Rule 30(e) explicitly authorizes substantive changes to deposition testimony that are made in compliance with the rule. Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, No. 17-cv- 04663-DWL, 2019 WL 7048773, at *16-17 n. 10. (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2019) (Applying the text of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and distinguishing cases where changes were made to defeat pending or future motions.) Plaintiff offers no reason to believe that the proposed changes were not in compliance with the rule. Plaintiff does correctly state that such changes are not permitted to defeat a pending motion or gain an unfair advantage. See. e.g., Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co., v. Balking Enter., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). And a motion for class certification was pending at the time the changes were made. But in this case, Defendants do not oppose the pending class certification motion, see. e.g. (Doc. 59) (“Statement of 1 Non-Opposition to Class Certification Motion’). And, even if they did, Plaintiff does not indicate how the corrected testimony is in any way dispositive of the ruling on that motion or unfair in ruling on other future pre-trial matters. Further, despite the changes made by the deponent, Mr. Wilson’s original testimony remains part of the record and counsel can cross-examine Mr. Wilson on those changes. In sum, the instant case falls under the text of the rule and resembles Cramton. It does not sufficiently resemble Hambleton. The motion to strike is, therefore, denied. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Doc. 60) is DENIED. Dated this 12th day of September, 2022. - A Whacrsay Sooo) Chief United States District Judge

_2-