UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
James E. Allen
v. Civil No. 18-cv-881-LM Opinion No. 2021 DNH 021 P Durham School Services, L.P.
ORDER
Defendant Durham School Services (“DSS”) provides transportation services
to school districts and municipalities. Plaintiff James E. Allen was a mechanic at
one of DSS’s garages. Allen sues DSS, alleging wrongful termination and unpaid
wages in violation of New Hampshire statute RSA 275:44 and further alleging a
violation of New Hampshire’s Whistleblower Protection Act, RSA 275-E:2. Allen
testified at a deposition hearing and subsequently submitted corrections to his
deposition transcript, known as an “errata sheet.” DSS moves to strike the errata
sheet on several grounds. Allen objects. For the reasons below, DSS’s motion to
strike the errata sheet (doc. no. 30) is denied.
BACKGROUND
The following facts come from the parties’ filings and attached exhibits. DSS
deposed Allen on February 6, 2020, and Allen received the deposition transcript on
1 February 26.1 On March 30, DSS reached out to Allen’s counsel noting that DSS
had not received changes to the deposition transcript and understood Allen’s silence
to be acceptance of the transcript. Allen’s counsel responded the next day, March
31, with an unsigned errata sheet and again on April 3 with a signed errata sheet.
Thirty-seven days elapsed between when Allen received the transcript and when his
counsel sent a signed errata sheet to DSS. DSS filed this motion to strike on
November 11, seven months after receiving the signed errata sheet.
Allen’s errata sheet makes nineteen changes to the 285-page transcript of his
deposition testimony. Most of the changes, fifteen in total, are brief additions
offered to clarify incomplete answers. The remaining four changes are substantive
edits, but they address only the activities inside of one of DSS’s garages where Allen
worked. The activities inside the garage are material, but they are not dispositive
regarding Allen’s claims of wrongful termination and violation of the Whistleblower
Protection Act. For example, Allen modified his answer “we didn’t have the garage
open” to “we didn’t have the garage open working on vehicles.” Doc. no. 30, ex. E.
In another edit, Allen was asked whether he understood that the hours of operation
were outside of the limits allowed by a town ordinance. He changed his response
from “I do” to “No, because we did no maintenance.” Id. Allen stated that he made
the changes “in order to make this deposition more nearly conform to the testimony
given.” Id.
1 DSS received the transcript on February 21.
2 Allen’s modifications regarding the activities inside the garage and the town
ordinance are not changed in a way that creates disputes of material fact because
the garage activities and town ordinance are addressed in other, unmodified
sections of Allen’s testimony. The errata sheet merely clarifies Allen’s recollection.
Further, there are other material disputes of fact that are covered in separate
sections of Allen’s testimony. Despite the routine nature of Allen’s changes, DSS
moves to strike the errata sheet, “intends to file a Motion to Compel,” and seeks to
reopen Allen’s deposition. See doc. nos. 30, 37.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) provides that a deponent “must be
allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is
available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording; and (B) if there are
changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the
reasons for making them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e). “Courts are entitled to enforce
Rule 30(e)’s time limit strictly and strike untimely errata.” EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg.
Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 2010). Many courts “disregard untimely errata
sheets, treating them as a nullity.” Barth v. City of Peabody, No. CV 15-13794-
MBB, 2019 WL 2525475, *2 n.5 (D. Mass. June 19, 2019) (quoting Norelus v.
Denny’s, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted)). While the
court can choose to strictly enforce Rule 30(e)’s time limit, the court can also exempt
a party from the deadline requirement. See Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico,
3 440 F.3d 531, 533 (1st Cir. 2006) (“The district court has significant discretionary
authority to set and enforce filing deadlines in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.”)
Rule 30(e) does not limit a party to minor corrections, “it permits changes in
form or substance.” Pina v. The Children’s Place, 740 F.3d 785, 792 (1st Cir. 2014);
see also Berndt v. Snyder, No. 13-CV-368-SM, 2014 WL 6977848, *6 (D.N.H. Dec. 9,
2014) (“Rule 30(e) expressly allows changes in both ‘form and substance.’”) (quoting
TG Plastics Trading, Co. v. Toray Plastics (Am.), Inc., No. 09–336M, 2013 WL
322121, at *1–*2 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2013)). Substantive changes in an errata sheet
may be significant and may “contradict the original answers given.” Poole v.
Gorthon Ll. AB, 908 F.Supp.2d 778, 785–86 (W.D. La. 2012).
When filing an errata sheet, “[t]he deponent . . . must supply a reason for the
changes which is not conclusory.” See Tingley Sys., Inc. v. CSC Consulting, Inc.,
152 F. Supp. 2d 95, 120 (D. Mass. 2001). If the deponent “fails to state the reasons
for the changes, the reviewing court may appropriately strike the errata sheet.”
EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d at 266. However, a short, general justification may be an
adequate reason for certain changes. See Foutz v. Town of Vinton, Virginia, 211
F.R.D. 293, 295–96 (W.D. Va. 2002). For example, in Foutz the court found that a
single reason at the beginning of the plaintiff’s errata sheet was a sufficient
justification for the changes. Id. The court held that it was not necessary to
“examine the sufficiency, reasonableness, or legitimacy of the reasons.” Id. at 296.
As an alternative to striking an errata sheet, a deposition may be reopened “if the
4 changes contained in the errata sheet make the deposition incomplete or useless
without further testimony.” Pina, 740 F.3d at 791 (quoting Tingley, 152 F. Supp. 2d
at 120).
Here, DSS first argues that Allen’s errata sheet should be stricken because it
was filed after the thirty-day deadline in Rule 30(e). The parties do not dispute that
Allen’s errata sheet was filed after the deadline and that the court may strike the
errata sheet. However, Allen argues that his seven-day delay should be excused
because he filed his errata sheet during the earliest part of this ongoing global
pandemic. New Hampshire Governor Christopher Sununu declared a state of
emergency due to COVID-19 on March 13, two weeks before the errata sheet was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
James E. Allen
v. Civil No. 18-cv-881-LM Opinion No. 2021 DNH 021 P Durham School Services, L.P.
ORDER
Defendant Durham School Services (“DSS”) provides transportation services
to school districts and municipalities. Plaintiff James E. Allen was a mechanic at
one of DSS’s garages. Allen sues DSS, alleging wrongful termination and unpaid
wages in violation of New Hampshire statute RSA 275:44 and further alleging a
violation of New Hampshire’s Whistleblower Protection Act, RSA 275-E:2. Allen
testified at a deposition hearing and subsequently submitted corrections to his
deposition transcript, known as an “errata sheet.” DSS moves to strike the errata
sheet on several grounds. Allen objects. For the reasons below, DSS’s motion to
strike the errata sheet (doc. no. 30) is denied.
BACKGROUND
The following facts come from the parties’ filings and attached exhibits. DSS
deposed Allen on February 6, 2020, and Allen received the deposition transcript on
1 February 26.1 On March 30, DSS reached out to Allen’s counsel noting that DSS
had not received changes to the deposition transcript and understood Allen’s silence
to be acceptance of the transcript. Allen’s counsel responded the next day, March
31, with an unsigned errata sheet and again on April 3 with a signed errata sheet.
Thirty-seven days elapsed between when Allen received the transcript and when his
counsel sent a signed errata sheet to DSS. DSS filed this motion to strike on
November 11, seven months after receiving the signed errata sheet.
Allen’s errata sheet makes nineteen changes to the 285-page transcript of his
deposition testimony. Most of the changes, fifteen in total, are brief additions
offered to clarify incomplete answers. The remaining four changes are substantive
edits, but they address only the activities inside of one of DSS’s garages where Allen
worked. The activities inside the garage are material, but they are not dispositive
regarding Allen’s claims of wrongful termination and violation of the Whistleblower
Protection Act. For example, Allen modified his answer “we didn’t have the garage
open” to “we didn’t have the garage open working on vehicles.” Doc. no. 30, ex. E.
In another edit, Allen was asked whether he understood that the hours of operation
were outside of the limits allowed by a town ordinance. He changed his response
from “I do” to “No, because we did no maintenance.” Id. Allen stated that he made
the changes “in order to make this deposition more nearly conform to the testimony
given.” Id.
1 DSS received the transcript on February 21.
2 Allen’s modifications regarding the activities inside the garage and the town
ordinance are not changed in a way that creates disputes of material fact because
the garage activities and town ordinance are addressed in other, unmodified
sections of Allen’s testimony. The errata sheet merely clarifies Allen’s recollection.
Further, there are other material disputes of fact that are covered in separate
sections of Allen’s testimony. Despite the routine nature of Allen’s changes, DSS
moves to strike the errata sheet, “intends to file a Motion to Compel,” and seeks to
reopen Allen’s deposition. See doc. nos. 30, 37.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) provides that a deponent “must be
allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is
available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording; and (B) if there are
changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the
reasons for making them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e). “Courts are entitled to enforce
Rule 30(e)’s time limit strictly and strike untimely errata.” EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg.
Sys., Inc., 618 F.3d 253, 266 (3d Cir. 2010). Many courts “disregard untimely errata
sheets, treating them as a nullity.” Barth v. City of Peabody, No. CV 15-13794-
MBB, 2019 WL 2525475, *2 n.5 (D. Mass. June 19, 2019) (quoting Norelus v.
Denny’s, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted)). While the
court can choose to strictly enforce Rule 30(e)’s time limit, the court can also exempt
a party from the deadline requirement. See Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico,
3 440 F.3d 531, 533 (1st Cir. 2006) (“The district court has significant discretionary
authority to set and enforce filing deadlines in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.”)
Rule 30(e) does not limit a party to minor corrections, “it permits changes in
form or substance.” Pina v. The Children’s Place, 740 F.3d 785, 792 (1st Cir. 2014);
see also Berndt v. Snyder, No. 13-CV-368-SM, 2014 WL 6977848, *6 (D.N.H. Dec. 9,
2014) (“Rule 30(e) expressly allows changes in both ‘form and substance.’”) (quoting
TG Plastics Trading, Co. v. Toray Plastics (Am.), Inc., No. 09–336M, 2013 WL
322121, at *1–*2 (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2013)). Substantive changes in an errata sheet
may be significant and may “contradict the original answers given.” Poole v.
Gorthon Ll. AB, 908 F.Supp.2d 778, 785–86 (W.D. La. 2012).
When filing an errata sheet, “[t]he deponent . . . must supply a reason for the
changes which is not conclusory.” See Tingley Sys., Inc. v. CSC Consulting, Inc.,
152 F. Supp. 2d 95, 120 (D. Mass. 2001). If the deponent “fails to state the reasons
for the changes, the reviewing court may appropriately strike the errata sheet.”
EBC, Inc., 618 F.3d at 266. However, a short, general justification may be an
adequate reason for certain changes. See Foutz v. Town of Vinton, Virginia, 211
F.R.D. 293, 295–96 (W.D. Va. 2002). For example, in Foutz the court found that a
single reason at the beginning of the plaintiff’s errata sheet was a sufficient
justification for the changes. Id. The court held that it was not necessary to
“examine the sufficiency, reasonableness, or legitimacy of the reasons.” Id. at 296.
As an alternative to striking an errata sheet, a deposition may be reopened “if the
4 changes contained in the errata sheet make the deposition incomplete or useless
without further testimony.” Pina, 740 F.3d at 791 (quoting Tingley, 152 F. Supp. 2d
at 120).
Here, DSS first argues that Allen’s errata sheet should be stricken because it
was filed after the thirty-day deadline in Rule 30(e). The parties do not dispute that
Allen’s errata sheet was filed after the deadline and that the court may strike the
errata sheet. However, Allen argues that his seven-day delay should be excused
because he filed his errata sheet during the earliest part of this ongoing global
pandemic. New Hampshire Governor Christopher Sununu declared a state of
emergency due to COVID-19 on March 13, two weeks before the errata sheet was
due.2 Further, Allen argues that DSS is not prejudiced by Allen’s delay, as
evidenced by the seven-month gap between the errata sheet and this motion to
strike. The court finds that Allen’s seven-day delay in sending the changes to his
deposition testimony is excusable under these circumstances and does not justify
striking the untimely errata sheet. See Perez-Cordero, 440 F.3d at 533.
DSS next argues that Allen’s errata sheet should be stricken because Allen
impermissibly made substantive changes in the errata sheet. Allen counters that
substantive changes are allowed under Rule 30(e). The court finds that Allen’s
substantive changes in his errata sheet are indeed permissible under both Rule
30(e) and First Circuit case law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e); Pina, 740 F.3d at 792.
2 Governor Christopher Sununu, An Order Declaring A State of Emergency
Due to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), Executive Order 2020-04 (March 13, 2020) https://www.governor.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt336/files/documents/2020-04.pdf. 5 DSS also argues that Allen’s errata sheet should be stricken because Allen’s
reason for filing the errata sheet is inadequate. Allen counters that his reason for
submitting the errata sheet—“to make this deposition more nearly conform to the
testimony given”—is sufficient. The court finds this to be adequate justification for
the changes in the errata sheet. See Foutz, 211 F.R.D. at 295–96.
Finally, DSS argues that Allen’s deposition should be reopened to inquire
into Allen’s reasons for the changes in his errata sheet. The court finds that Allen’s
deposition does not need to be reopened because the errata sheet does not make
Allen’s deposition “incomplete or useless.” Pina, 740 F.3d at 785. Instead, DSS may
explore the changes at trial.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, DSS’s motion to strike plaintiff’s errata
sheet (doc. no. 30) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States District Judge
January 27, 2021
cc: Counsel of Record