Daniellle Parker v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 56 4/21/17 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re: Plaintiff's Deposition Changes. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIELLE PARKER,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. 3:15-cv-05673-TEH (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 4/21/17 JOINT
LETTER RE: PLAINTIFF'S CHANGES
TO HER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 56

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13

On April 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter regarding deposition changes made by

14

Plaintiff Danielle Ross Parker under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1)(B). (Joint Letter,

15

Dkt. No. 56.)

16

Upon review of the joint letter, the Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without

17

oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth below, finds that

18

all changes are sham and/or contradictory, and, therefore, must be stricken.

19

I.

20

BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2017, Plaintiff Danielle Parker’s counsel emailed a series of changes to

21

Plaintiff’s deposition, which was originally taken on March 8, 2017. (Joint Letter at 1, Ex. A.) It

22

was not signed and did not contain the reasons for the changes. Id. On April 18, 2017, Defendant

23

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC filed a motion to strike the deposition

24

changes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1)(B) on the grounds that the changes did not

25

bear Plaintiff’s actual signature or a statement of reasons explaining the changes, and was instead

26

an attempt to rewrite Plaintiff’s deposition testimony rather than correct stenographic or

27

typographical errors. (Dkt. No. 51 at 1-2.) Also on April 18, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for

28

summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 50.)

On April 18, 2017, the undersigned terminated the motion to strike and ordered the parties

1
2

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

3
4

Court:

5

No.
1

Page/Line
40:22

Testimony
“I was moving”

2
3
4
5

60:19
60:21
60:23
89:5

“I don’t recall”
“I don’t recall”
“I don’t recall”
“Yes, well it was
anxiety, not substance.”

6

89:8

“No”

7
8

112:9
129:12

“Approximately”
“I can’t answer that”

“Yes, and I raised substance
abuse issues with my doctor
before the call to CDRP”
“No, it was earlier”
“Yes”

9

167:16

“Similar”

“No”

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Corrected Testimony
“I was moving, and under
tremendous stress and anxiety”
“No”
“No”
“No”
“Yes, and anxiety”

13
14
15
16

Reason for Change
Incomplete response
Clarification
Clarification
Clarification
Correction of response, in a series
of questions/responses which were
unclear and misleading
Correction of response, in a series
of questions/responses which were
unclear and misleading
Response is not correct
Correction of response to question
that required understanding of
legal terms
Question was misheard or
misunderstood

(Joint Letter, Ex. B.)
On April 21, 2017, the parties filed the instant joint letter.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

17

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e), a deponent or a party may make

18

changes to the deposition transcript in form or substance within 30 days of the transcript’s

19

availability if he or she “sign[s] a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.”

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B). “Rule 30(e) is to be used for corrective, and not contradictory,

21

changes.” Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.

22

2005). Thus, this permission to make corrections “‘in form or substance,’ [ ] does not properly

23

include changes offered solely to create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to evade an

24

unfavorable summary judgment.” Id. at 1225 (citation omitted). Indeed, Rule 30(e)

25
26
27
28

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,
2

1

disputed changes are generally impermissible when they appear to substantively change or

2

contradict original testimony, particularly in the summary judgment context. Teleshuttle Techs.

3

LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WL 3259992, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2005)

4

III.

As an initial matter, the Court declines to strike Plaintiff’s corrections as untimely, even

5
6

DISCUSSION

though her April 15, 2017 submission did not appear to closely comply with Rule 30(e).1
On the merits, Defendant contends that all changes should be stricken on the grounds that

7
8

they are “sham” changes intended to substantively revise deposition testimony in an attempt to

9

rewrite her testimony to avoid summary judgment, . . . [and that they] are improper substantive
revisions disallowed by the Ninth Circuit under Hambleton v. Balkin. (Joint Letter at 2.) Plaintiff

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

denies that these are sham changes, because the original changes, although absent explanation,

12

were served prior to the filing of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Joint Letter at 5.)

13

The Court will address each of the changes below.

14

A.

15

Plaintiff attempts to change her response from “I was moving” to “I was moving, and

Change No. 1

16

under tremendous stress and anxiety” on the grounds that the original testimony was an

17

“incomplete response.” (Joint Letter, Ex. B.) The question asked why Plaintiff had missed work

18

on a certain date. (Parker Dep. at 40:18-19.) Her testimony, therefore, was complete in and of

19

itself without the additional information. The fact that Plaintiff had testified throughout her

20

deposition regarding her general anxiety is unavailing, because there is no indication that her

21

moving was anxiety provoking, especially since she did not recall that during her deposition. (See

22

Joint Letter at 5.) Accordingly, this substantive change is stricken.

23

B.

24

Plaintiff attempts to change three responses from “I don’t recall” to “No” based on them

Change Nos. 2-4

25

being purported clarifications. (Joint Letter, Ex. B.) These “clarifications,” however, directly

26

contradict her original deposition testimony, and, therefore, must be stricken. See Teleshuttle,

27
1

28

The Court does not know when the transcript was available, because that information was not
provided by the parties.
3

1

2005 WL 3259992, at *2.

2

C.

Change Nos. 5 & 6

3

Plaintiff’s corrected testimony directly contradicts her original testimony, as she is

4

essentially changing negative responses to affirmative ones. (See Joint Letter at 6; Parker Dep.

5

89:3-11.) Accordingly, these contradictory changes must be stricken.

6

D.

7

Here, Plaintiff seeks to change an incorrect response. That Plaintiff testified differently

Change No. 7

8

later in her deposition, after reviewing the relevant documents, does not permit a change to be

9

made to alter her earlier, inconsistent deposition testimony. (See Joint Letter at 6.) Thus, this

10

change must be stricken.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

E.

12

Plaintiff seeks to substantively change “I can’t answer that” to an affirmative “Yes” in

Change No. 8

13

response to a question regarding asking if Ms. Jackai had “any ill will or bad feelings toward you

14

in April and May of 2013?” (Joint Letter at 6, Ex. B; Parker Dep. at 129:10-12.) The line of

15

questioning continues, and Plaintiff testified that she did not recall anything Ms. Jackai said to her

16

verbally. (Parker Dep. at 129:13-24.) Plaintiff argues that she did not understand the legal

17

concepts of “malice” or “ill will,” and, as a result, she did not understand the question. (Joint

18

Letter at 6.) This rationale is untenable, because whether Plaintiff understood is irrelevant because

19

she answered the question. If she did not understand the question, she should have said so during

20

the deposition. As a result, Plaintiff’s change substantively alters her testimony and is not

21

permitted under Hambleton.

22

F.

23

Plaintiff’s final correction also directly contradicts her earlier testimony. (Joint Letter at 6;

Change No. 9

24

Parker Dep. at 167:14-19.) Plaintiff argues that the question was “misheard or misunderstood,”

25

because, based on the friction between Plaintiff and Ms. Elliot, they obviously did not have a

26

“mothering relationship.” (Joint Letter at 6, Ex. B.) Based on Plaintiff’s testimony immediately

27

thereafter, however, Plaintiff does not appear to have misheard or misunderstood the question.

28

Therefore, the substantive change must be stricken.
4

IV.

1

CONCLUSION

2

Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, the Court finds that all nine of

3

the disputed changes are impermissible because they appear to substantively change or contradict

4

Plaintiff’s original testimony. Accordingly, the Court strikes all nine changes.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5