It is one of the most frustrating things you can have happen after concluding a successful deposition. The witness backtracks on all the substantive admissions she has made during her testimony.
Can she really do that? Well, yes. Rule 30(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure says that the deponent can review her testimony and:
If there are changes in form or substance, the deponent shall sign a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by the deponent for making them.
But are there no limits on the changes which may be offered? Apparently not, based on Judge Bledsoe’s Opinion this month in Window World of Baton Rouge, LLC v. Window World, Inc., 2018 NCBC 78.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers were attempting to prevent one of the Defendants (Tammy Whitworth) from making wholesale changes to her deposition testimony via the presentation of an errata sheet. Those proposed changes included “thirty-eight substantive changes to her deposition testimony.” Op. Par. 5.
The Opinion contains no detail on the nature of the changes offered by Defendant Whitworth, but it is safe to assume that they are in the nature of her saying “the light was green” at her deposition, and changing that testimony to “the light was red.”
Can a deponent make an absolute about face from her deposition testimony? Yes, in North Carolina and in the majority of federal jurisdictions. Although the Eastern District of North Carolina is in that minority. William L. Thorp Revocable Tr. v. Ameritas Inv. Corp., 57 F. Supp. 3d 508, 517 (E.D.N.C. 2014) (concluding that Federal Rule 30(e) “does not permit a party to make changes that substantively contradict or modify sworn deposition [testimony]”).
This Opinion did not leave the Plaintiffs with no value from the original deposition testimony. Judge Bledsoe said that he would “impose[] two safeguards. . . in light of the extensive substantive changes Whitworth has made to her deposition transcript.” Op. ¶16.
The first “safeguard”was that Whitworth’s original answers would remain in the record and could be used for impeachment purposes. “or for any other relevant or proper purpose.” Op. ¶16.
The second protection granted by Judge Bledsoe was to allow Plaintiffs another deposition of Defendant Whitworth. He limited that new deposition to one hour on the record, limiting questioning to “the reasons for those changes and to ask reasonable follow-up questions that flow from Whitworth’s answers to these permitted inquiries.” Op. ¶17. The new deposition will be at the Defendants’ expense.
This isn’t the first time that the Business Court has allowed a deposition errata sheet to be allowed over objections that the proposed changes were excessive. Judge Diaz ruled on this issue in an unpublished Order in Bueche v. Noel, as did Judge Bledsoe in an unpublished Order in BB&T Boli Plan Tr. v. Mass Mutual Life Ins. Co.
.