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.

Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

March 26, 2018

KASSI TCHANKPA, Plaintiff,
v.
ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., Defendant.

          Magistrate Judge, Chelsey M. Vascura

          OPINION AND ORDER

          EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant Ascena Retail Group, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Kassi Tchankpa's Deposition Errata Sheet (ECF No. 63). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         I.

         Tchankpa is suing his former employer, Ascena, for disability discrimination (under federal and state law), tortious injury, and tortious refusal to pay medical bills. (See Am. Compl. at 10-14, ECF No. 22.) On January 9, 2018, Ascena took Tchankpa's deposition. (Mot. at 2, ECF No. 63.) Tchankpa reserved the right to review and sign the deposition transcript, and on February 19, 2018, he signed an errata sheet outlining several hundred changes to his deposition testimony. (See Errata Sheet at PagelD 608, ECF No. 63-3.)

         In a section entitled "INSTRUCTIONS" on the first page of his errata sheet, Tchankpa indicated that the changes that he was making to his deposition testimony were intended to remove, rephrase, and replace words, lines, and even entire answers of his testimony. (See Errata Sheet at PagelD 608.) Tchankpa also listed on the first page of the errata sheet the reasons for his changes. (Id.) Each change addresses (1) a typing error, (2) being interrupted by defense counsel, (3) lack of information at the deposition, (4) a confusing question, (5) a confusing question, improper wording, or being interrupted, or (6) an answer that does not make sense. (See id.; see also Resp. at 2-6, ECF No. 66.)

         Arguing that Tchankpa cannot use his errata sheet to make substantive changes to his deposition testimony, Ascena has moved to strike the errata sheet. (See Mot. at 1-2.) Ascena requests that all but five of Tchankpa's changes (those found on lines 222, 246, 378, 1204, and 1458 of the errata sheet) be stricken. (Id. at 1.)

         II.

         Ascena styles its Motion as one to strike Tchankpa's errata sheet. The Court, however, interprets the Motion as a request for it to disregard the changes in the errata sheet when ruling on motions for summary judgment. See Jones-McNamara v. Holzer Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-616, 2015 WL 196048, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2015); Mullins v. Cyranek, No. 1.-12CV384, 2014 WL 3573498, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 21, 2014).

         A. Legal Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) outlines the process by which a deponent may alter his deposition testimony:

(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the 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 ...

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.