Page 19

Birmingham Bar Association Bulletin

Errata Sheets home and plan artful responses. Depositions differ from interrogatories in that regard. A deposition is not a take home examination.’” However, other district court courts in the Eleventh Circuit have held that Reynolds does not compel a District Court to take a narrow view of Rule 30(e). First, while the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s order in Reynolds, it did not discuss any particular aspects of the decision. Second, . . . the Reynolds court did not address striking an errata sheet but rather whether it was proper to disregard it in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. . . .Third, as a nonpublished opinion Reynolds is not binding precedent. See 11th Cir. R. 36–2. In Purdee v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, the Court held in pertinent part, As the Eleventh Circuit has not clearly addressed the issue, the Court is persuaded that, at least at this early stage in the litigation, it is permissible for plaintiff to submit an errata sheet that substantively changes her answers, even if those changes contradict her previous testimony. Although, the court went on to note that “while plaintiff is free to make substantive errata changes that contradict her prior deposition testimony, the Court is not necessarily precluded from disregarding such changes in deciding a motion for summary judgment.” While federal district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have differing approaches to the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e), the Alabama Supreme Court has yet to address the issue. An Alabama practicing attorney is left to guess if the interpretation of Ala. R. Civ. P. 30(e) will follow the majority of federal courts or if it will follow the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to substantive changes to errata Matthew Slaughter, Contributor A8493737-01 sheets. G Birmingham Bar Bulletin/ Spring 2018 19


Birmingham Bar Association Bulletin
To see the actual publication please follow the link above