Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic

Background

The court addressed three discovery-related motions. Mohamed Elsherif sought an additional deposition of Mayo Clinic under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows a party to question an organization through designated witnesses. Mayo Clinic moved to strike an 11-page errata sheet containing 98 proposed changes to Elsherif’s deposition testimony. Elsherif also moved for sanctions, claiming that Mayo’s deposition questioning was too long, that his lawyer was prevented from questioning him, and that he was denied an interpreter.

Motion to Compel

Elsherif sought another Mayo Clinic deposition concerning Topics 16 through 20. Topics 16 through 19 sought the factual and legal bases for Mayo’s responses to administrative charges and other legal matters, as well as its affirmative defenses. The court found these topics overbroad because they required Mayo to prepare a witness to explain all the factual and legal bases for its positions. The court also found that the requests could create privilege, attorney-work-product, burden, and proportionality problems.

The court rejected Topic 20 as well. That topic concerned Elsherif’s medical, psychiatric, occupational, treatment, and employee-assistance records. The court stated that Elsherif sued Mayo in its capacity as his former employer, not as his medical provider, and that Mayo, acting as employer, did not have access to the medical records at issue. The court therefore denied Elsherif’s motion to compel as to Topics 16 through 20.

Motion to Strike Errata

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) allows a deposition witness to list changes in form or substance to the transcript and give reasons for the changes. The court recognized that courts have disagreed about whether this rule permits broad substantive changes. Relying on decisions involving contradictory sworn testimony, including an earlier decision from the same court, the court concluded that Rule 30(e) does not permit Elsherif to use an errata sheet to radically contradict his deposition answers.

The court emphasized that Elsherif proposed many changes that substantially altered the meaning of his testimony. As an example, Elsherif sought to change his answer that Dr. Bydon was honest into a lengthy statement accusing Dr. Bydon and another physician of dishonesty and falsifying emails. The court also rejected Elsherif’s arguments that the changes were justified because the deposition lasted too long, his lawyer did not cross-examine him, or he lacked an interpreter. The court found that the parties had agreed that the deposition could last up to nine hours, that the questioning lasted seven hours and ten minutes, and that the total time including breaks was eight hours and sixteen minutes. It also found no indication that Mayo prevented Elsherif from using an interpreter and stated that Elsherif had previously been told he would have to pay for one.

The court did not strike every correction. It allowed corrections that fixed transcription mistakes, added missing words, or filled in missing words. It also allowed five specified entries to remain unstricken: page 16, line 15; page 46, line 9; page 110, line 18; page 111, line 24; and page 233, lines 18–21. The court granted Mayo Clinic’s motion to strike as modified.

Motion for Sanctions and Order

The court found Elsherif’s sanctions motion meritless and denied it. The final order therefore denied Elsherif’s motion to compel, granted as modified Mayo Clinic’s motion to strike, and denied Elsherif’s motion for sanctions. The opinion concerns discovery management and does not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.