deposition-errata-sheet

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

1. Confirm review was timely requested and deadline has not lapsed
2. Identify whether you are submitting corrections (Part A) or challenging opposing corrections (Part B)
3. Research controlling local precedent on substantive changes
4. 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