United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Elizabeth P. Deavers, Chief Magistrate Judge.
OPINION & ORDER
A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs David Hall, Nick
Thompson, and Dustin Bryan's (collectively
"Plaintiffs") Motion to Strike (ECF No.
126), Defendant U.S. Cargo & Courier Service, LLC's
("U.S. Cargo") Response in Opposition (ECF
Nos. 130, 131), and Plaintiffs' Reply (ECF No.
132). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
in PART and DENIES in PART
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. (ECF No. 126.)
January 16 and 17, 2019, Plaintiffs' counsel deposed
David Hammel ("Hammel"), Jeremy Lutey
("Lutey"), and Serena Whitman
("Whitman"). (See Def.'s Mot. to
Strike, Exs. A, B, C [ECF Nos. 126-2, 126-3, 126-4].) On
February 28, 2019, the court reporting service granted U.S.
Cargo a 30-day extension to submit errata sheets. On March 8,
2019, U.S. Cargo timely submitted notarized errata sheets for
the deposition transcripts of Hammel, Lutey, and Whitman. On
behalf of Hammel, U.S. Cargo sought to correct ten alleged
errors. U.S. Cargo designated eight of those corrections as
"clarification of testimony" and two as
"inaccurate testimony." (See Mot. to
Strike, Ex. A [ECF No. 125-2].) U.S. Cargo requested to
correct four alleged errors in Lutey's deposition
transcript. U.S. Cargo designated three corrections as
"clarification of testimony" and one as
"inaccurate testimony." (See Mot. to
Strike, Ex. B [ECF No. 125-3].) For Whitman's deposition
transcript, U, S. Cargo requested to correct 58 alleged
errors. (See Mot. to Strike, Ex. B [ECF No. 125-4].)
U.S. Cargo asserts that 44 of those changes were for
"clarification of testimony," ten were to
"correct typographical errors," and four were due
to "inaccurate testimony." Id.
March 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike and
attached the errata submitted by U.S. Cargo. (See
Mot. to Strike [ECF No. 125].) The next day, Plaintiffs filed
the identical motion to strike but attached as exhibits three
summaries of each deponent's errata. (See Mot.
to Strike [ECF No. 126].) The Clerk then restricted
Plaintiffs' first motion to strike, noting that counsel
refiled the same motion twice. For practical purposes, the
Court will address the motion to strike that Plaintiffs filed
on March 20, 2019, because that motion is substantively
identical to Plaintiffs' first motion. The Court will
only address the errata sheets attached to the first motion,
however, because those are the actual sworn documents that
U.S. Cargo submitted on behalf of the deponents.
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) outlines the process by which a
deponent may alter her 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
(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 for making
(2) Changes Indicated in the Officer's
Certificate. The officer must note in the certificate
prescribed by Rule 30(f)(1) whether a review was requested
and, if so, must attach any changes the deponent makes during
the 30-day period.
Fed. R. Civ. P, 30(e). District courts in the Sixth Circuit
interpret this Rule restrictively. Although Rule 30(e) refers
to changes in "substance," courts in the Sixth
Circuit have interpreted the Rule to prohibit substantive
changes and permit only the correction of typographic and
transcription errors. See, e.g., McClendon v. Hightowers
Petroleum Co., No. 1:14-cv-619, 2016 WL 2859625, at *l-2
(S.D. Ohio May 16, 2016); Mullins v. Cyranek, No.
1:12-cv-384, 2014 WL 3573498, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 21,
2014); Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Grp., Inc.,
2:16-cv-895, 2018 WL 1472527, at *l-2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26,
restrictive approach stems from the Sixth Circuit's
decision in Trout v. FirstEnergyCorp., 339
Fed.Appx. 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009). Addressing the scope of