Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant
Eric Edward Juell
Plaintiff
David Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 Injunctive relief is merely a request that defendants follow the law by not participating 1

in age discrimination.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC EDWARD JUELL,

Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-05-0378 FCD GGH 

vs.

FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for February 23, 2006,

was defendants’ motion to strike corrections to deposition testimony, filed February 15, 2006. 

Having heard oral argument and reviewed the parties’ joint statement filed that date, the court

now issues the following order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action against his former employer Forest Pharmaceuticals

and former supervisor David Williams, for age discrimination, age harassment, wrongful

termination, and for not preventing discrimination and harassment from occurring, all under the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The case was originally filed on January 26,

2005, in the superior court in Nevada County, and removed here under diversity jurisdiction on

February 25, 2005. Plaintiff seeks damages.1

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 03/09/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

The discovery cutoff is March 3, 2006, with discovery orders issued and

compliance with those orders required by that date.

DISCUSSION

Defendants object to corrections in deposition testimony made by plaintiff Eric

Juell and his wife Enedina Juell, claiming they are in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e) because

they did not provide an explanation for the changes, and because the majority of changes

substantially alter the testimony. 

Defendants also argue that the changes are so voluminous as to confuse the jury

regarding the actual testimony of each individual, causing defendants prejudice. Defendants

contend they are also prejudiced by an inability to obtain summary judgment due to changes

which attempt to create issues of fact. 

Plaintiff argues that the changes do not extensively contradict the deposition

testimony. Plaintiff and his wife have agreed to a further deposition to address the substance of

their corrections. Furthermore, plaintiff argues that defendants can impeach them at summary

judgment and/or at trial regarding the corrections they have made. They contend that the instant

changes were made in a timely fashion and there is no summary judgment motion pending at this

time.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) states: 

If requested by the deponent or a party before completion of the

deposition, the 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

reasons given by the deponent for making them. The officer shall

indicate in the certificate prescribed by subdivision (f)(1) whether

any review was requested and, if so, shall append any changes

made by the deponent during the period allowed.

The requirement that a statement of reasons accompanies the corrections is

important to allow determination of whether the deponent has made the corrections for a

legitimate purpose. Hambleton Brothers Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217,

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 03/09/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

1224-25 (9 Cir. 2005). In sum, Rule 30(e) may be utilized only for corrective, not contradictory th

changes, id. at 1226, and the statement of reasons will largely determine the category in which

the changes fit. This does not mean that substantive changes can never be made. It does mean

that a legitimate reason must exist before the substantive change to sworn testimony will be

allowed. Thus, for example, a failure to remember one item to a question which called for many

items to be recollected may well be an innocent lapse of memory. Many persons have trouble

with precise dates, and it would not be unusual to see some changes to responses involving dates. 

On the other hand, changes from “yes” to “no,” or gross departures from original testimony in

date and time responses, and the like, would raise suspicions that the deponent, in retrospect,

realizing that the truthful answer will cause problems in the case, changes the response simply to

ward off a motion. Such changes would violate the Hambleton rule. 

Plaintiff asserts that they are now ready to give the reasons for their changes in a

second deposition. The court has considered this offer, which was also made during the meet

and confer process, but ultimately rejects it. The reasons for the changes should have

accompanied the changes, and the courts should not routinely task the interrogating party with

the requirement of multiple depositions pre-trial until the deponent “gets it right.” Depositions

are events in litigation on par with trial testimony; indeed, depositions are often used as trial

testimony. A witness at trial does not receive an opportunity to “do it over” in front of the jury. 

Neither should the court foster a rule where a deponent gets to “do it over” in terms of testimony

prior to a motion.

The court can, however, clearly understand the corrective nature of some changes

from the context of the question and answer. To the extent that corrections set forth changes

which are corrective only, or set forth facts which are consistent with the complaint, they will be

allowed. With these principles in mind, the following changes are ordered stricken from the

deposition testimony of plaintiff and his wife. 

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 03/09/06 Page 3 of 4
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

 The court may not direct plaintiffs in regards to what they will say at trial under oath as 2

deliberately false testimony might make a party liable for perjury.

4

Deposition Changes of Eric Juell

Corrections numbered 3, 4, 18, 19, 22, 24, 36, 41, 47, 50, 54, 55, 56, 62, 66, 67,

70, 71, 73, and 74, are stricken.

Deposition Changes of Enedina Juell

Corrections numbered 2, 5, 6, and 7 are stricken.

Nothing in this order precludes impeachment upon the corrections allowed. 

Nothing in this order precludes plaintiffs from changing testimony at trial, even with respect to

the stricken items.2

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike corrections to

deposition testimony, filed February 15, 2006, is granted in part as outlined in this opinion.

DATED: 3/8/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076

Juell0378.mtn.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-00378-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 03/09/06 Page 4 of 4