Ramirez v. HV Global Management Corporation

Background

Nelson Ramirez moved to strike eight changes HV Global Management Corporation submitted to the deposition transcript of Anthony Williams, HV Global’s designated witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). Williams testified on July 6, 2023. HV Global later submitted errata—written corrections or changes to deposition testimony—on August 21, 2023.

The eight changes concerned documents addressing meal and rest breaks for non-exempt hourly employees in California at Highlands Inn. Williams’s deposition answers generally indicated that one policy document applied to the employees and remained current. The errata changed those answers from “yes” or nearly affirmative answers to “no,” stating that Williams had mistakenly believed an older policy was the newer version.

Ramirez filed a motion for class certification three days before receiving the errata, and his motion relied in part on Williams’s testimony about the policies. Ramirez initially argued that the errata was untimely, but conceded at the hearing that it had been submitted within 30 days after HV Global received notice that the transcript was available for review.

Parties’ Positions

Ramirez principally argued that the eight changes contradicted Williams’s testimony and reflected a tactical effort to avoid class certification. HV Global responded that the changes corrected an unintentional misstatement because the older and newer policy documents appeared strikingly similar.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) permits a deponent to make changes to deposition testimony in form or substance if the rule’s review and timing requirements are met. The court explained that the rule does not permit a witness to make a sham change solely to avoid an unfavorable ruling. It also relied on Ninth Circuit authority stating that Rule 30(e) is for corrective, not contradictory, changes.

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not directly decided whether contradictory changes may be stricken when they are not a sham. It followed an earlier decision from the Northern District of California concluding that contradictory changes may be stricken even without a finding of a sham. The court reasoned that substantive changes contradicting deposition testimony are not allowed under Rule 30(e) unless they plausibly correct a transcription error, such as the omission of a word like “not.”

Analysis

The court found that all eight changes were contradictory because each changed a definitive or nearly definitive “yes” to a definitive “no.” It accepted HV Global’s explanation that Williams had confused older and newer versions of the policies and found no reason to question the truthfulness of that explanation. The court also found no evidence that Williams deliberately gave false testimony expecting Ramirez to rely on it, or that he was replacing truthful testimony with false testimony to avoid its legal consequences.

Even so, the court held that the changes were not permitted because they contradicted the deposition testimony and did not merely correct a transcription error. The court stated that HV Global and Williams could still explain the allegedly mistaken testimony when opposing Ramirez’s motion for class certification, and that the judge handling that motion could evaluate the explanation.

Disposition

The court granted Ramirez’s motion and struck the eight changes reproduced in the opinion from Williams’s deposition errata. The order addressed a discovery dispute and did not decide the class-certification motion itself.