Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02099/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diane Mann, as Trustee for )

the Estate of LeapSource, )

Inc., et al. )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 02-2099-PHX RCB

)

Vs. ) O R D E R

)

GTCR Golder Rauner, L.L.C., )

a Delaware limited liability )

company., et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On April 15, 2005, Defendant Kirkland & Ellis ("K&E") filed a

Motion to Strike Errata Sheet of Rule 30(b)(6) Witness and for

Sanctions. Mot. (doc. 192). This motion was fully briefed on May

20, 2005. Reply (doc. 212). Having carefully considered the

arguments presented by the parties, the court now rules. 

I. Background Facts

On November 24, 2004, K&E initially noticed the Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition of the Trustee in this matter. The notice sought

testimony regarding the facts underlying Count 10, the legal 

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1Apparently the original correction sheet was not filed with the

Court, however, a copy was attached to K&E's motion to strike. 

Exbt. 3 (doc. 192). Consequently, the Court's ruling on this motion

will relate to the document attached to K&E's motion to strike. 

- 2 -

malpractice claim asserted against K&E by the Trustee. However, the

Trustee objected to the notice and refused to appear on the ground

that Rule 30(b)(6) did not apply to a trustee in bankruptcy.

Eventually, the Court was contacted to resolve this issue, and on

December 23, 2004, the Court issued an order holding that Rule

30(b)(6) applied to the Trustee and ordered the Trustee or her

designee to appear for deposition. Order (doc. 153).

After some delay, the deposition occurred on February 10,

2005. The Trustee designated Plaintiff Thomas Gilman to testify on

her behalf. At the deposition, Gilman acknowledged that he was

prepared to testify on the subjects set forth in the deposition

notice. Gilman testified for approximately four hours, and,

throughout the deposition, the Trustee's counsel asked no

clarifying questions. 

Thereafter, on March 24, 2005, all counsel received a

statement of changes signed by Gilman regarding his deposition. 

The changes were submitted in a three-page table title "Gilman

Deposition Correction" with twenty-two specific changes to his

testimony ("the Correction Sheet"). Exbt. 3 (doc. 192).1

II. Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions

In its motion, K&E asks the Court to strike the Correction

Sheet from the record in this case. Mot. (doc. 192) at 9. K&E

argues that the changes listed in the Correction Sheet are

significant and substantial, and amount to a rewrite of Gilman's

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

testimony. Id. at 3-6. Moreover, K&E asserts that it was the

Trustee's responsibility to produce a knowledgeable witness for the

deposition, and her failure to do so does not allow Plaintiffs to

rewrite Gilman's testimony. Reply (doc. 212) at 2-5. In addition,

as a sanction for this conduct, K&E asks the Court to enter

judgment in its favor on Count 10 of the Fourth Amended Complaint

and requests its reasonable costs and fees incurred in filing this

motion. Mot. (doc. 192) at 8-9.

In response, the Trustee argues that the Correction Sheet

should not be stricken, because Rule 30(e) expressly allows parties

to make "changes in form or substance" to deposition testimony. 

Resp. (doc. 204) at 6, citing Fed. R. Civ. P 30(e). The Trustee

explains that she had a difficult time finding someone to conduct

the deposition that had knowledge of the subject matter on which

K&E intended to ask questions. Resp. (doc. 204) at 2-3. Although

Gilman prepared for the deposition by meeting with his attorneys,

speaking with Plaintiff Christine Kirk, and reviewing documents,

the Trustee explains that he simply did not remember the

information and facts he had reviewed. Id. at 4. Thus, the

Trustee argues that the Correction Sheet should remain in the

record and be challenged in court at trial. Id. at 8.

Under Rule 30(e), a deponent may make corrections to his or

her deposition testimony after reviewing the deposition transcript.

[T]he deponent shall have 30 days after being

notified by the officer that the transcript or

recording is available in which to review the

transcript or recording and, if there are changes

in form or substance, to sign a statement reciting

such changes and the reason given by the deponent

for making them.

Fed. R. Civ. P 30(e). The Ninth Circuit further explained the

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

limitations of this rule in Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin

Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005). In

Hambleton, a witness attempted to change his answers from "I don't

know" to more substantive responses alleging new facts. Id. at 1225

n.6. The witness also attempted to change his testimony regarding

a contract from "Personally, I guess he, he [sic] didn't breach

it," to "I don't know the law but if Mr. Ballinger is responsible

for Balkin's actions, then if Balkin breached the agreement, Mr.

Ballinger breached the agreement." Id. After reviewing these

changes, the court upheld that district court's order to strike the

errata sheet, finding that the corrections were "clearly altered"

to allege new facts. Id.

[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. Depositions differ from interrogatories

in that regard. A deposition is not a take home

examination.

Id. at 1225 (quoting Garcia v. Pueblo County Club, 299 F.3d 1233,

1242 n.5 (10th Cir. 2002). 

The Court finds the alterations asserted in the case at bar to

be akin to those discussed in Hambleton. The contested Correction

Sheet attempts to substantially alter Gilman's deposition

testimony. For example, the Correction Sheet seeks to change one

of Gilman's answers of "Yes" to "I don't know; I'm not a lawyer." 

Exbt. 3 (doc. 192) at 2. Other changes listed in the Correction

Sheet include altering Gilman's answers of "It can't" to "I don't

know; I'm not a lawyer;" "That is correct" to "Sachnoff & Weaver

was representing Ms. Kirk with respect to her separation from

Andersen, and in discussions with GTCR related to her separation

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

from Andersen and related to the terms of her own employment and

compensation by LeapSource;" "Not that I am aware of" to "Yes, in

the litigation with Arthur Andersen;" "No" to "Yes, Ms. Kirk raised

that issue in a telephone conversation with Mr. Nolan and Mr.

Ritchie during the week of September 13, after receiving the

September 16 draft of the Purchase Agreement. Mr. Ritchie did not

respond to Ms. Kirk's comment, but Mr. Nolan did." Id. at 2-3. 

Additionally, the Correction Sheet changes three of Gilman's

answers of "No" to merely "Yes." Id. at 4.

The Trustee attempts to distinguish Hambleton from this case

by noting that the witness in Hambleton was a percipient witness. 

Resp. (doc. 204) at 6. The Court finds no merit in this

distinction, however, because the Trustee cites no authority to

support her argument, and the Court sees no reason why such a

distinction should be imposed. 

Thus, the Court concludes that the Correction Sheet is

inappropriate and must be stricken. However, the Court shall deny

K&E's request for entry of judgment in its favor on Count 10 as a

sanction against the Trustee. In addition, the Court shall deny

K&E's request for fees incurred in relation to this motion, as the

request was not properly filed in accordance with Local Rule 54.2. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that K&E's motion to strike (doc. 192) is

GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that K&E's motion for sanctions (doc.

. . .

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

192) is DENIED, without prejudice.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record.

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 357 Filed 03/29/06 Page 6 of 6