Lewis v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Marva LEWIS, Case No.: 21-cv-01385-JAH-BGS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. [ECF 36] 12 CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, et al., 13 Defendant. 14

15 On June 5, 2023, the parties contacted the Court with a discovery dispute regarding 16 a proposed errata to the March 15, 2023, deposition of Marva Lewis, Plaintiff. (ECF 35.) 17 After discussing the issue with the parties telephonically, the Court ordered that the 18 parties file a joint brief with the Court addressing the issue. (Id.) 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) provides that if requested by a deponent or 20 by a party before completion of a deposition, the deponent shall have 30 days after being 21 notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which to review the 22 transcript or recording, and if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement 23 reciting such changes and the reasons for the deponent making them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 30(e)(1). After review by the witness and indication of any changes made, the deposition 25 transcript or recording is certified and delivered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(f)(1). The 26 officer’s certificate prescribed by subdivision (f)(1) shall note whether a review was 27 28 1 requested, and if so, shall append any changes made by the deponent during the period 2 allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(2). 3 Rule 30(e) is to be used for corrective, and not contradictory, changes. Hambleton 4 Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005). “The Rule 5 cannot be interpreted to allow one to alter what was said under oath.” Garcia v. Pueblo 6 Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233, 1242 n.5 (10th Cir. 2002). “If that were the case, one 7 could merely answer the questions with no thought at all then return home and plan artful 8 responses.” Id. “A deposition is not a take home examination.” Id. Given this, Rule 9 30(e) is limited to “corrections of stenographic errors, whether those corrections are of 10 form or substance.” ViaSat, Inc. v. Acacia Commc’ns, No. 16cv463 BEN (JMA), 2018 11 WL 899250, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018). “Rule 30(e) is not properly used to alter 12 deposition testimony provided under oath and correctly transcribed.” Id. When a party 13 has attempted to utilize Rule 30(e) beyond this scope, courts should strike the proposed 14 changes. Ashcraft v. Welk Resort Grp., No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK, 2017 WL 15 5180421, at *4-5 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2017). 16 The relevant deposition exchange is as follows: 17 Q: And then it states here above the signature, “Specific information related to injuries I sustained from the harassment 18 and torture of Lori Murphy.” That’s also your handwriting, 19 correct?

20 A: That looks like my handwriting. Correct. 21 (ECF 36 at 8.) 22 Plaintiff seeks to add that the writing says, “from the harassment and taunting of 23 Lori Murphy,” instead of “harassment and torture.” (ECF 36 at 12). Plaintiff argues that 24 the change is permitted because she misunderstood the question and is clarifying the 25 record. 26 The Court notes that the only question asked was whether the handwriting on the 27 document belonged to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not asked whether the document stated, 28 1 “harassment and torture.” Although the attorney’s interpretation of the document may be 2 || open for debate, Plaintiff does not seek to correct a stenographic mistake under Rule 3 ||30(e). Plaintiff understood the question she was asked and answered it. Plaintiff's intent 4 clarify the record is not allowed under Rule 30(e). 5 Further, Plaintiff could have clarified the record at the deposition, and can certainly 6 || argue her interpretation of the document at trial. See ViaSat, Inc., 2018 WL 899250, at 7 (noting that the deponent was not precluded from later clarifying or correcting any 8 || testimony he believed to be erroneous). 9 In conclusion, the Court strikes the proposed Errata. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: July 5, 2023 7 2 p / / 13 on. Bernard G. Skomal 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28