SA Music, LLC v. Apple, Inc
- Corle
- 3:20-cv-02794
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In SA Music v. Apple, Judge Corle granted Apple’s motion to strike contradictory deposition errata in three related cases.
Apple, Inc.; Julia Riva; Ray Henderson Music Co. Inc.; and the plaintiffs and parties in the three related cases identified in the order.
What happened
In SA Music, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Apple asked the court to strike changes submitted after depositions by Julia Riva and Ray Henderson Music Co. Inc.
The court explained that deposition changes may correct testimony but may not contradict earlier answers or create a new factual dispute. It found that all the challenged changes contradicted the deposition testimony.
The court granted Apple’s motion as to the identified errata and struck them. Judge Corle signed the order, which also disposed of specified docket entries in the three related cases.
The detailed version
- SA Music, LLC v. Apple, Inc · No. 3:20-cv-02794
- Corle
- Aug. 11, 2021
Background
Apple moved to strike deposition errata submitted by Julia Riva and Ray Henderson Music Co. Inc. after their depositions. The order concerned three related cases identified as Adasam, Pickwick, and Genepool, and disposed of the specified docket entries in each case.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) permits a deponent to make certain changes to deposition testimony, including changes in form or substance, if procedural requirements are met. The court explained that Ninth Circuit law applies a “sham rule,” which prevents a party from creating a factual dispute by submitting errata or an affidavit that contradicts earlier deposition testimony. The court also distinguished permissible corrections from contradictory changes. Changing “yes” to “no” or “correct” to “no not correct” were given as examples of contradictions.
Ruling
The court found that all the errata identified in Exhibit 1 contradicted the deposition testimony and therefore struck them. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the changes responded to the questions asked during the depositions, explaining that such an argument could be presented to the trial judges at the appropriate time but did not justify allowing the contradictory errata. Apple’s motion was granted as to the errata identified in Exhibit 1. The order was signed by Acqueline Scott Corle, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.