Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC
3:15-cv-05673
N.D. Cal.May 5, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Danielle Parker’s deposition was taken March 8, 2017; counsel emailed proposed changes on April 15, 2017 and amended changes on April 20, 2017 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e).
- Defendant Comcast moved to strike the changes, arguing they lacked Plaintiff’s signature and reasons and improperly altered sworn testimony to avoid summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge ordered the parties to meet-and-confer and submit a joint letter, which identified nine numbered changes to the transcript (e.g., "I don't recall" → "No", adding anxiety as a reason for missed work, changing "I can't answer that" → "Yes").
- Rule 30(e) requires a signed statement listing changes and reasons; Ninth Circuit authority limits Rule 30(e) to corrective, not contradictory, changes.
- The court reviewed each disputed change and found they materially contradicted or substantively altered the original testimony rather than correcting stenographic/typographical errors.
- The court declined to strike the changes as untimely but struck all nine changes as improper substantive revisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff’s Rule 30(e) changes were timely and procedurally compliant | Changes were served before Comcast’s summary-judgment motion; therefore not sham | Changes lacked Plaintiff’s signature and reasons and initially did not comply with Rule 30(e) | Court declined to strike as untimely but addressed merits; did not rely on timeliness to strike changes |
| Whether the disputed changes are permissible under Rule 30(e) (corrective vs. contradictory changes) | Changes are clarifications/corrections of incomplete or misunderstood answers | Changes are substantive contradictions intended to rewrite testimony and create issues to avoid summary judgment | Court held all nine changes are sham/contradictory and stricken as impermissible under Hambleton |
Key Cases Cited
- Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 30(e) permits corrective but not contradictory changes; cannot be used to alter sworn testimony to avoid summary judgment)
- Greenway v. Int’l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322 (W.D. La. 1992) (depositions are not take‑home examinations; Rule 30(e) may not be used to craft new responses after the fact)