Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 5, 2017

DANIELLE PARKER, Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER REGARDING 4/21/17 JOINT LETTER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CHANGES TO HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY Re: Dkt. No. 56

          KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge

         On April 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter regarding deposition changes made by Plaintiff Danielle Ross Parker under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1)(B). (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 56.)

         Upon review of the joint letter, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below, finds that all changes are sham and/or contradictory, and, therefore, must be stricken.

         I.BACKGROUND

         On April 15, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker's counsel emailed a series of changes to Plaintiff's deposition, which was originally taken on March 8, 2017. (Joint Letter at 1, Ex. A.) It was not signed and did not contain the reasons for the changes. Id. On April 18, 2017, Defendant Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC filed a motion to strike the deposition changes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1)(B) on the grounds that the changes did not bear Plaintiff's actual signature or a statement of reasons explaining the changes, and was instead an attempt to rewrite Plaintiff's deposition testimony rather than correct stenographic or typographical errors. (Dkt. No. 51 at 1-2.) Also on April 18, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 50.)

         On April 18, 2017, the undersigned terminated the motion to strike and ordered the parties to meet and confer, and, if necessary, file a joint letter by April 21, 2017. (Dkt. No. 53.)

         On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed amended changes, which have been numbered by the Court:

No.

Page/Line

Testimony

Corrected Testimony

Reason for Change

1

40:22

“I was moving”

“I was moving, and under tremendous stress and anxiety”

Incomplete response

2

60:19

“I don't recall”

“No”

Clarification

3

60:21

“I don't recall”

“No”

Clarification

4

60:23

“I don't recall”

“No”

Clarification

5

89:5

“Yes, well it was anxiety, not substance.”

“Yes, and anxiety”

Correction of response, in a series of questions/responses which were unclear and misleading

6

89:8

“No”

“Yes, and I raised substance abuse issues with my doctor before the call to CDRP”

Correction of response, in a series of questions/responses which were unclear and misleading

7

112:9

“Approximately”

“No, it was earlier”

Response is not correct

8

129:12

“I can't answer that”

“Yes”

Correction of response to question that required understanding of legal terms

9

167:16

“Similar”

“No”

Question was misheard or misunderstood

(Joint Letter, Ex. B.)

         On April 21, 2017, the parties filed the instant joint letter.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e), a deponent or a party may make changes to the deposition transcript in form or substance within 30 days of the transcript's availability if he or she “sign[s] a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e)(1)(B). “Rule 30(e) is to be used for corrective, and not contradictory, changes.” Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, this permission to make corrections “‘in form or substance, ' [ ] does not properly include changes offered solely to create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to evade an unfavorable summary judgment.” Id. at 1225 (citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 30(e)

cannot be interpreted to allow one to alter what was said under oath. If that were the case, one could merely answer the questions with no thought at all then return home and plan artful responses. Depositions differ from interrogatories in that regard. A deposition is not a take home examination.

Id. (quoting Greenway v. Int'l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La.1992)). As a result, disputed changes are generally impermissible when they appear to substantively change or contradict original testimony, particularly in the summary judgment context. Teleshuttle Techs. LLC v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.