Can deponents make extensive changes to sworn testimony through errata sheets? Albrecht v. Bennett Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the limits of Rule 30(e) errata sheets in Albrecht v. Bennett, establishing important guidelines for when courts will suppress extensive deposition changes.

Background and Facts

Connie Albrecht sued attorneys Wallace and David Bennett after they filed motions in federal court following their termination from breast implant litigation. During her deposition, Albrecht repeatedly denied authorizing the lawsuit against the Bennetts and stated she suffered no damages. However, after the Bennetts filed a motion for summary judgment based on her testimony, Albrecht made nearly forty changes to her deposition through errata sheets, fundamentally altering her answers from “no” to “yes” and adding detailed explanations that contradicted her original sworn testimony.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Albrecht’s extensive substantive changes to her deposition testimony violated Rule 30(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted suppression. The court applied the three-factor test from Gaw v. State: (1) whether the changes were so extensive as to be unmanageable, (2) whether the deponent offered to reopen the deposition at their expense, and (3) whether the deponent provided specific reasons for each change.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suppression of the changes. Albrecht failed all three Gaw factors: her nearly forty substantive changes constituted “wholesale alteration” of sworn testimony; she disingenuously offered to reopen the deposition while simultaneously seeking a protective order to prevent it; and she provided only general conclusory reasons (“nervousness, confusion, and lack of memory”) rather than specific explanations for each change. The court emphasized that depositions are not “take home examinations” and Rule 30(e) cannot be interpreted to allow alteration of what was said under oath.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts strictly enforce Rule 30(e)’s technical requirements. Practitioners must ensure clients provide specific reasons for each individual change rather than blanket explanations. When making substantive changes that would prompt additional examination, attorneys should genuinely offer to reopen the deposition at the client’s expense. The ruling serves as a warning that extensive changes attempting to cure damaging testimony will likely be suppressed as improper attempts to circumvent the deposition process.