While defendant Whitworth’s changes to her deposition testimony are extensive and substantive, N.C. R. Civ. P. 30(e) allows her to make such changes.
The court denies plaintiffs’ request to strike Whitworth’s errata sheet.
The court rejects the view, espoused by plaintiffs, of a minority of federal courts that extensive and comprehensive changes are impermissible.
However, in light of the extensive substantive changes Whitworth has made to her deposition transcript, Whitworth’s original answers to the questions posed at her deposition will remain part of the record and may be used for impeachment, as contemplated under the applicable North Carolina Rules of Evidence, or for any other relevant or proper purpose.
In addition, the court will permit plaintiffs to re-depose Whitworth regarding the changes she has made to her deposition transcript and the reasons for those changes and to ask reasonable follow-up questions that flow from Whitworth’s answers to these permitted inquiries.
The court further notes that plaintiffs may seek to challenge Whitworth’s substantive corrections to the extent defendants offer those corrections as a basis to advance or defeat summary judgment at a later stage of these proceedings.
Window World of Baton Rouge, LLC v. Window World, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 020-056-18, 11 pp.) (Louis Bledsoe III, C.J.) Charles Coble, Robert King III, Benjamin Norman, Jeffrey Oleynik, Andrew Rodenbough, Richard Wolff, John Wolff III and Virginia McLin for plaintiffs; Michael Medford, Judson Welborn, Natalie Rice, Jessica Vickers, Mark Leitner, Joseph Goode, Jessica Farley, Sarah Thomas Pagels, John Halpin, Andrew Freeman and Alan Ruley for defendants. 2018 NCBC 78