Sampson v. Pia et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying 52 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/12/2016. (Landman, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

TYRAN SAMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY PIA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:15-cv-359 (SRU)

RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND DEPOSITION
Tyran Sampson has filed a motion in which he seeks permission to amend his deposition.
In support of his request, he states that he has reviewed his deposition transcript and realizes that
his statements and answers were incomplete and not accurate. Sampson also states that he was
coerced into answering questions to “their” liking and tricked to withdraw certain claims. As a
result, Sampson requests that he be deposed again.
Under Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party who has been deposed
is permitted to review the transcript of the deposition and submit an “errata sheet” identifying the
portions of the transcript that are inaccurate. The errata sheet must be submitted within thirty
days of the transcript being made available to the deponent and must state the reasons for making
any changes to the transcript. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1). The proposed changes will then be
appended to the deposition transcript and may be made available for use at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(e)(2).
Though Sampson was permitted to submit an errata sheet within thirty days of being
provided with the transcript of his deposition, I am aware of no procedural mechanism that

would permit me to order the defendants to retake Sampson’s deposition. I might add that, even
if a new deposition were taken, it is well-settled that a plaintiff “cannot defeat a summary
judgment motion by responding with affidavits recanting . . . earlier testimony.” Margo v.
Weiss, 213 F.3d 55, 60-61 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). In other words, a plaintiff
cannot avoid summary judgment by disputing factual admissions or concessions made in his or
her deposition. See id. Nor can a plaintiff dispute factual admissions “by submitting errata
sheets long after [his or her] deposition[] was taken, or by filing ‘supplemental answers’ to
interrogatories.” Id. at 61 (internal footnote omitted).
To the extent that Sampson wishes to submit an errata sheet that identifies portions of the
transcript that inaccurately reflect his sworn testimony on the date of his deposition, Sampson
may do so within thirty days of this order. What Sampson may not do is submit an errata sheet
that attempts to contradict his prior sworn testimony. Nor can Sampson use an errata sheet to
make objections to the manner in which opposing counsel conducted the deposition. Maynard v.
Stonington Cmty. Ctr., 2016 WL 2869740, at *2 (D. Conn. May 17, 2016).
Regardless of whether Sampson submits an errata sheet, he should be aware that the
factual statements made at his deposition will remain in the record and may be used in support of
the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (and, if necessary, at trial). See Podell v.
Citicorp Diners Club, Inc., 112 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[T]he original answer to the
deposition questions will remain part of the record and can be read at the trial.”).
For the foregoing reasons, Sampson’s motion to amend his deposition (doc. # 52) is
denied. Sampson may submit an errata sheet within thirty days of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of September 2016 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
2

/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

3