When it comes to depositions, errata sheets often spark debate in the legal community. Some attorneys argue they should only be used to correct minor errors, such as typos or transcription mistakes. Others believe witnesses should be able to use them to make more substantial changes to their testimony.
No matter your stance, the key point is this: understanding the rules around errata sheets is essential to maintaining the integrity of the deposition record. Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plays a central role here, and any attorney involved in litigation must be familiar with how it governs the process.
What Is an Errata Sheet in a Deposition?
An errata sheet is a document attached to a deposition transcript that allows a witness to correct mistakes. Although it’s separate from the main transcript, it becomes part of the official court record once submitted.
According to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
-
The witness has the right to review and sign their deposition transcript.
-
After being notified that the transcript is ready, the witness has 30 days to make any corrections.
-
Any changes must include a signed statement explaining the reason for each correction.
Why Reviewing the Errata Sheet Matters
The primary purpose of an errata sheet is to correct errors in the record, not to revise testimony after the fact. Witnesses shouldn’t use this opportunity to add details or reframe their answers—especially if they’re simply unhappy with how something was said during the deposition.
If a lawyer doesn’t carefully review the errata sheet, problematic or contradictory changes can slip through and become part of the official record. If those changes resurface during trial, it can seriously damage a case—or the lawyer’s credibility.
Errata sheets can directly affect case outcomes, which is why thorough review and proper legal guidance are non-negotiable.
Can a Witness Change Their Testimony?
Whether a witness can make significant changes on an errata sheet depends on the jurisdiction. Courts typically fall into one of three camps when interpreting Rule 30(e):
1. Case-by-Case Evaluation
Some courts examine the context of the changes—such as when they were made and how significant they are. If changes contradict earlier testimony or are made just before critical motions are due, the court may reject them.
2. Traditional Interpretation
This is the most widely accepted approach. As long as the procedural requirements under Rule 30 are met, the witness may make any corrections, even those that change the meaning or substance of their answers—for example, changing a “yes” to a “no.”
3. Strict or Narrow Interpretation
Some courts take a stricter view, allowing only corrections that fix transcription or clerical errors. In Greenway v. International Paper Co., the court held that Rule 30 doesn’t allow witnesses to materially alter testimony, as it would let them rethink and rewrite their answers after the fact.
How to Properly Make Changes to a Deposition
If a witness must make a change, they must also provide a clear, detailed reason. A vague explanation like “for clarification” isn’t sufficient—especially when making material changes to key testimony.
If the space on the court’s errata form is too limited, attorneys are encouraged to submit a separate document with thorough explanations.
In today’s world of recorded depositions, it’s also important to ensure that any reason given for a change aligns with what was captured on video.
Can the Errata Process Be Abused?
While Rule 30 allows for corrections, it’s not a free pass to revise sworn testimony. If the opposing side believes the changes are misleading or inconsistent with the original answers, they can challenge the errata sheet in court.
Under the “sham affidavit” doctrine, courts may disregard an errata sheet if they believe the changes are being made to fabricate an issue or contradict earlier testimony.
Courts have also rejected justifications based on language difficulties or inexperience unless those issues were clearly present during the deposition.
In some cases, if the errata changes make the deposition unreliable, the opposing party can reopen the deposition and question the witness again.
Importantly, the original transcript remains on record, and it can be brought up during trial. Witnesses must be prepared to explain and defend any changes they’ve made.
Final Thoughts: Precision and Integrity Matter
While Rule 30 allows for corrections, it doesn’t give witnesses or attorneys the freedom to alter testimony without accountability. Lawyers must understand the rules in their jurisdiction and advise their clients accordingly.
When changes are necessary, they should be made carefully, explained thoroughly, and supported by clear reasons. The goal is to protect the integrity of the deposition and ensure transparency throughout the process.
At OASinc, we’re committed to helping legal professionals navigate the errata sheet process with confidence. Whether it’s reviewing changes or ensuring proper documentation, our team supports you in keeping your record clean, accurate, and defensible.
Need expert support for your next deposition?
Connect with OASinc today and ensure your transcript corrections are handled with clarity and compliance.