Stradtman v. Republic Services, Inc. et al

Filing 165

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 148 MOTION to Strike Deposition Errata Sheet of Plaintiff Stephen M. Stradtman. (See Memorandum Opinion For Details). Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 5/26/15. (nhall)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

STEPHEN M. STRADTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

M E M O R A N D U M

1:14cv1289 (JCC/JFA)

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Republic
Services, Inc., Ronald Krall, and Republic Services of Virginia,
LLC’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Strike Deposition
Errata Sheet of Plaintiff Stephen M. Stradtman (“Stradtman”).
[Dkt. 148.]

For the following reasons, the Court will grant the

motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Background
Stradtman claims that Defendants tortiously interfered
with contractual relations and business expectancies regarding
his former employment as the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of
Otto Industries North America, Inc. (“Otto”).
3] at ¶¶ 121-140.)

(Compl. [Dkt. 1-

In general, Stradtman claims that Defendants

caused his resignation from Otto in retaliation for a
discrimination lawsuit that Stradtman’s wife, Jennifer Taylor

1

(“Taylor”) had filed against Defendants.

(See generally id.)

Defendants move to strike two changes to Stradtman’s
March 23, 2015 deposition and one change to his April 9, 2015
deposition.

(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. [Dkt. 149] at 2, 5.)

Stradtman has withdrawn the errata sheet concerning his
testimony on page 354 of his April 9, 2015 deposition, and as
such Defendants’ motion as to that errata sheet is moot.
Opp. [Dkt. 157] at 1.)

(Pl.’s

Defendants move to strike the changes to

the March 23 deposition on grounds that the changes are
substantive.

(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 5-7.)

Having been fully

briefed and argued, this motion is ripe for disposition.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) allows a
deponent to review the transcript or recording of the deposition
and “if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a
statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e).

Thus, Rule 30(e) allows a deponent to

submit an errata sheet detailing corrections to his deposition
testimony.

“[T]he purpose of an errata sheet is to correct

alleged inaccuracies in what the deponent said at his
deposition, not to modify what the deponent said for tactical
reasons or to reflect what he wishes he had said.”

Touchcom,

Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 790 F. Supp. 2d 435, 465 (E.D. Va.
2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
2

in original).

Altering deposition testimony to make substantive

changes, rather than technical or typographical changes, is an
impermissible use of errata sheets.

Lee v. Zom Clarendon, L.P.,

689 F. Supp. 2d 814, 816 n.3 (E.D. Va. 2010).
III. Analysis
Defendants seek to strike two of Stradtman’s changes to his
March 23 deposition.

As to the first change, Stradtman

originally testified:
Q: Okay. Do you know among those four
possibilities at McCandless who actually
owned or rented the scanners that were being
used?
A: No, I don’t.
(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp., Ex. C, at 171:19-22. 1)

Stradtman wants to

change his answer from “No, I don’t” to “Republic.” (Defs.’ Mem.
in Supp., Ex. A, at 2.)

Stradtman listed the reason for the

change as “after deposition I show [sic] docs [sic] showing
Brent Bowker requesting capital to purchase scanners.”

(Id.)

One of Stradtman’s claims in this case is that the
problems with delivery of trash carts by Otto in McCandless,
Pennsylvania, were either caused by or exaggerated by Republic.
Scanners are used to track the delivery of each cart to a
specific home.

According to Defendants, Stradtman’s proposed

1

Pagination is according to the original deposition. Page 171
of Stradtman’s March 23, 2015 deposition is on page 44 on
CM/ECF.
3

change “lay[s] blame at the feet of Republic for delivery issues
in McCandless.”

(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. at 5.)

Defendants’ motion to strike this change will be
granted.

On the same page of the deposition, Stradtman

testified:
Q: Where did the – who owns the devices, the
scanners in the McCandless project?
A: I could be – it could be us or the third
party or Republic or the city.
Q: Are they rented or are they – does Otto
rent these things or do you own them?
A: Probably both.
Q: All right.
A: I know we own some.
Q: Okay.
A: We may have rented some.
Q: Do you know if in the McCandless project
these scanners were rented or owned by Otto,
the sub, Republic, or the municipality?
A: It could have been some of – it could
have been some of all of that.
As far as
what the actually sub was using with his
people, I can’t tell you.

Q: Okay. Do you know among those four
possibilities at McCandless who actually
owned or rented the scanners that were being
used?
A: No, I don’t.

4

(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp., Ex. C, at 171:1-22.)

Stradtman was asked

several times if he knew who owned or rented the scanners for
McCandless, and several times he gave equivocal answers.

Read

in its proper context, changing the last question in this series
of confirmatory questions from “No, I don’t” to “Republic” would
be a substantive change and therefore is an impermissible use of
an errata sheet.

See Touchcom, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d at 465

(stating that Rule 30(e) “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.
interrogatories in that regard.
examination.”).
omitted).

Depositions differ from

A deposition is not a take home

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to strike this change

on the errata sheet will be granted.
Defendants also move to strike another change to
Stradtman’s March 23 deposition.

Stradtman first testified:

Q: What personal knowledge do you have of
Mr. Krall going out of his way to create a
problem or –
A: In January, okay, mass e-mail why the
problems with Otto in Pittsburgh again.
(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp., Ex. C, at 300:22 – 301:4. 2)

Stradtman

wants to correct his testimony to read:

2

The relevant deposition pages are pages 76 and 77 on CM/ECF.
5

Q: What personal knowledge do you have of
Mr. Krall going out of his way to create a
problem or –
A: In January, okay, [Krall sends a mass
distributed email saying “why the problems
with Otto in Pittsburgh again,” before an
Otto Problem was identified] mass e-mail why
the problems with Otto in Pittsburgh again.
(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp., Ex. A, at 3.)
After the question and answer at issue here,
Stradtman’s testimony is as follows:
Q: Right.
A: Blasting it to everyone when there was
not an Otto problem in Pittsburgh again.
Q: What project was that email about?
A: I don’t know.
Pittsburgh again.
Q: Right.

He

referred

to

it

as

But you don’t know what project –

A: I can’t
project.

remember

the

name

of

that

Q: Did you investigate that project?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what did you find?
A:
No
problem.
problems.

Republic

(Defs.’ Mem. in Supp., Ex. C, 301:5-17. 3)

reported

no

Stradtman’s original

deposition testimony is indecipherable, and the proposed
correction does not make Stradtman’s testimony much more
3

CM/ECF page 77.
6

intelligible.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Stradtman’s

proposed changes are not substantive.

Stradtman’s correction is

an attempt to clarify his testimony. It does not appear that the
change is inconsistent with his later testimony or would
substantively alter his testimony.

(See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp.,

Ex. A, at 3 (“Reason for change: clarity”).)

Therefore,

Defendants’ motion to strike this change will be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in
part and deny in part Defendants’ motion.

An appropriate order

will issue.

May 26, 2015
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7