SA Music LLC v. Apple, Inc
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-02965
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In SA Music LLC v. Apple, Inc., Judge Corley struck contradictory deposition errata and granted Apple’s motion to strike.
The ruling affected Apple, Inc., the plaintiffs in the related cases, and the challenged deposition testimony of Julia Riva and Ray Henderson Music Co. Inc.
What happened
SA Music LLC and other plaintiffs brought related cases against Apple, Inc. and other defendants. Apple challenged errata 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 errata contradicted the deposition testimony.
Judge Corley struck the challenged errata and granted Apple’s motion as to the errata listed in Exhibit 1. The order resolved the identified discovery motions in three related cases.
The detailed version
- SA Music LLC v. Apple, Inc · No. 3:20-cv-02965
- William Orrick
- Aug. 11, 2021
Background
Apple moved to strike deposition errata submitted by Julia Riva and Ray Henderson Music Co. Inc. after their depositions. The dispute concerned changes to deposition testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e).
Legal standard
Rule 30(e) permits changes to deposition testimony in form or substance when its procedural requirements are met. The court explained that Ninth Circuit law applies a “sham rule” that prevents a party from creating a factual dispute by submitting errata or an affidavit that contradicts earlier deposition testimony. The court also stated that Rule 30(e) permits corrective changes, not contradictory changes. Changing an answer from “yes” to “no” was identified as an example of a contradiction rather than a correction.
Ruling
The court found that all errata identified in Exhibit 1 contradicted the deposition testimony. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the errata answered the questions asked during the depositions, explaining that this did not justify allowing a deponent to contradict earlier testimony. The court therefore struck the challenged errata and granted Apple’s motion as to the errata identified in Exhibit 1.
The order disposed of Docket No. 82 in Adasam, No. 20-cv-02146-WHO; Docket No. 85 in Pickwick, No. 20-cv-02794-EMC; and Docket No. 76 in Genepool, No. 20-cv-02965-JSW.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.