Vice Chancellor Slights recently addressed the appropriate course of action when a party challenges substantive changes to a deposition transcript made through the use of an errata sheet.
In Mediacom Delaware LLC v. Sea Colony Recreational Association, Inc., Sea Colony moved to strike the errata sheet of Mediacom’s 30(b)(6) witness as either a sham affidavit or under the Court’s rules.
The Court found neither argument persuasive due to Mediacom’s compliance with Chancery Rule 30(e). The Court noted that it has the authority to strike an errata sheet, but the preferable practice is to allow substantive changes and to consider the changes when assessing the witness’s credibility. Further, the Vice Chancellor explained that he would reconsider his ruling if Mediacom did not make the witness available for cross examination at an upcoming evidentiary hearing on injunctive relief.
Read the opinion here.