| name | deposition-errata-sheet |
| title | Deposition Errata Sheet |
| description | Guides the FRCP 30(e) errata sheet process — submitting corrections for your witness and challenging improper opposing corrections. Covers change permissibility, jurisdictional splits, errata formatting, motions to strike, and impeachment use. Use when reviewing a deposition transcript for corrections, responding to an opposing errata sheet, or preparing cross-examination on changed testimony. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/deposition-errata-sheet |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
Deposition Errata Sheet
Manages the FRCP 30(e) errata process: submitting corrections for your witness or challenging an opposing witness's improper changes.
Prerequisites
- Deposition transcript with page/line numbers
- Review requested on the record before deposition concluded
- 30-day deadline from reporter's notification of transcript availability
- Audio/video recording (if available) for verifying transcription errors
- Jurisdiction — local precedent on permissible change scope
Quick Start
- Confirm review was timely requested and deadline has not lapsed
- Identify whether you are submitting corrections (Part A) or challenging opposing corrections (Part B)
- Research controlling local precedent on substantive changes
- Draft errata sheet or challenge motion using the workflows below
Jurisdictional Split on Substantive Changes
| View | Rule | Key Cases |
|---|
| Permissive | Form and substance allowed; original preserved; addressed on cross | Greenway v. Int'l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322 (W.D. La. 1992) |
| Restrictive | Only transcription errors; substantive changes may be stricken | Various district courts |
| Intermediate (majority) | Substantive changes permitted but contradictory ones disregarded; reasons scrutinized; usable for impeachment | Hambleton Bros. Lumber v. Balkin, 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005); Burns v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 330 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2003) |
Always verify controlling precedent before submitting or challenging errata.
Part A — Submitting Errata (Your Witness)
Change Permissibility
| Category | Examples | Permissible? |
|---|
| Typographical error | Name misspelled, number wrong | Yes |
| Technical/industry term | Acronym expanded wrong, jargon misheard | Yes |
| Obvious mishearing | "I didn't" vs. "I did"; audio confirms |
