A North Carolina court recently ruled on a significant issue regarding deposition testimony in the case of Relation Insurance, Inc. v. Pilot Risk Management Consulting, LLC (Docket No. 22-CVS-4285). The court decided whether a deponent is allowed to make substantive changes to their deposition transcript using an errata sheet. This ruling affects how depositions may be conducted in the future, particularly in contentious cases involving multiple parties.

The court's decision comes amid ongoing litigation between Relation Insurance and Pilot Risk Management Consulting, which includes several former employees of Relation as defendants. The ruling clarifies the rights of deponents in North Carolina and sets a precedent for how similar disputes may be handled in the future.

Background

Relation Insurance, Inc. and Relation Insurance Services of North Carolina, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) filed their lawsuit on April 11, 2022. They are suing Pilot Risk Management Consulting, LLC and its affiliated entities, along with several former employees, for various claims. The dispute centers around allegations of wrongful conduct by the former employees who are now working for Pilot.

Discovery in this case has been contentious, prompting numerous disputes over the handling of evidence and testimony. The current issue arose when Jonathan W. Cooper, designated by Relation as a corporate representative, provided testimony during a deposition. Following the deposition, Cooper submitted an errata sheet containing 76 changes to his original testimony, which led to the defendants filing a motion to strike these changes.

The Ruling

Judge Mark A. Davis presided over the case and ultimately ruled that the changes made by Cooper on the errata sheet could not be stricken. The court concluded that under North Carolina law, a deponent is permitted to make substantive changes to their deposition transcript. The judge stated, “The plain language of Rule 30(e) permits a deponent to change his deposition transcript ‘in form or substance,’ so long as the deponent ‘sign[s] a statement reciting such changes and the reasons given by the deponent for making them.’”

While the court upheld the right of the deponent to make changes, it also acknowledged the potential for prejudice to the opposing party. To address this concern, the court allowed the defendants to re-depose Cooper regarding the changes he made. This re-deposition is intended to clarify the reasons behind the changes and to allow for follow-up questions.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for how depositions are conducted in North Carolina. It confirms that deponents can alter their testimony post-deposition, which could lead to more contentious depositions in the future. The decision may encourage parties to be more vigilant during depositions, knowing that witnesses can later modify their statements.

Additionally, the court's ruling sets a precedent that may influence how other courts interpret similar rules regarding deposition testimony. It highlights the importance of procedural safeguards to ensure fairness in the discovery process, allowing for re-depositions when substantive changes are made.

What's Next

The defendants in this case will have the opportunity to re-depose Cooper, which will take place at the plaintiffs' expense. This re-deposition must occur within the existing deadlines for discovery. The court also deferred any determination on whether Cooper's changes would be considered in future motions for summary judgment, indicating that the issue may arise again as the case progresses.