Which statement will be considered true/genuine

[nancypowell]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

Recently, during a deposition, I answered for a question in two different ways at two different times on the same day, when I was asked that question.

Onetime, I said "I did not do it as far as I remember"

Another time (after an hour or so, during the same deposition), I said "I did it but I do not remember now on how I did it"

A few days after the deposition, I produced some documents to the other party (as part of other party's documents production request) that explained "how I did it" also.

Which of statements will be considered true?

Am I expected to remember everything during deposition?

 

[FlyingRon]

They're both presumed true. You swore that you were making true statements. They will stand until someone on one side or another challenges the validity. What are you getting at?

 

[TigerD]

Which of statements will be considered true?

Nothing said by you.
You already got caught lying.

DC

 

[nancypowell]

I appreciate your feedback.

while making my first statement during deposition, I could not recall. After a while during the deposition (after seeing some other documents produced by the other party) I recalled my memory and said my second statement.

While producing the documents (few days after the deposition), I have included a document/proof from a third party whose statements support my 2nd statement.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

Recently, during a deposition, I answered for a question in two different ways at two different times on the same day, when I was asked that question.

Onetime, I said "I did not do it as far as I remember"

Another time (after an hour or so, during the same deposition), I said "I did it but I do not remember now on how I did it"

A few days after the deposition, I produced some documents to the other party (as part of other party's documents production request) that explained "how I did it" also.

Which of statements will be considered true?

Am I expected to remember everything during deposition?

You are making much too much out of the deposition!

Obviously you were being evasive. However, the only way the deposition could be published and hurt you in court is if you were to then deny having done whatever it is that you did.

If it should happen that you are cross-examined concerning what appears to be evasiveness during the deposition, explain that your memory was since been refreshed by examining the mentioned documents.

Whatever it is that you did seems to be critical to the opponents case. If you admit to it in court, the opposition would have no need to resort to the depo. It could only be published to impeach your courtroom testimony.
__________

It also seems apparent that you have bigger problems with the lawsuit, having done what you did, than worrying about the deposition. I suggest that you concentrate your energies elsewhere.

 

[nancypowell]

Appreciate a lot.

 

[Nellibelle]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

Recently, during a deposition, I answered for a question in two different ways at two different times on the same day, when I was asked that question.

Onetime, I said "I did not do it as far as I remember"

Another time (after an hour or so, during the same deposition), I said "I did it but I do not remember now on how I did it"

A few days after the deposition, I produced some documents to the other party (as part of other party's documents production request) that explained "how I did it" also.

Which of statements will be considered true?

Am I expected to remember everything during deposition?

Usually, when someone participates in a deposition, there is a copy of it that gets transcribed. You get a copy to read over with the option to change anything you said in the deposition. This would be your chance to make your statements consistent with each other, before returing the corrected version of the depo back to your attorney.

 

[quincy]

It is important to note that corrections made to a transcribed deposition* will not replace the original answers and can, in fact, create problems of their own. Following the advice of your attorney is vital before considering making any documented changes to what has been previously said by you under oath. Many attorneys will recommend that you let the deposition responses stand.




*Edit to add: Any deposition transcript review must be requested prior to completion of the deposition. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(e) allows for deponents to read, correct and sign transcripts of their depositions. See New York's Rule 206.11.

 

[Zigner]

Usually, when someone participates in a deposition, there is a copy of it that gets transcribed. You get a copy to read over with the option to change anything you said in the deposition. This would be your chance to make your statements consistent with each other, before returing the corrected version of the depo back to your attorney.

Nelli -

This is getting stupid. STOP making guesses. REALLY.

 

[Nellibelle]

Nelli -

This is getting stupid. STOP making guesses. REALLY.

Guesses? I've attended 2 depositions with 2 different lawyers and my uncle attended a deposition in a different state and all 3 lawyers advised that you can change/correct statements made in the depo when you get the transcribed document. I believe this is pretty universal procedure in many if not all states!

 

[quincy]

Guesses? I've attended 2 depositions with 2 different lawyers and my uncle attended a deposition in a different state and all 3 lawyers advised that you can change/correct statements made in the depo when you get the transcribed document. I believe this is pretty universal procedure in many if not all states!

It is one thing to know what you can do. It is an entirely different thing to know whether what you can do is the smart thing to do.

Until you realize this difference, Nellibelle, and can advise posters accordingly, you may want to seriously consider reading more and posting less.

nancypowell should consult with an attorney in her area of New York before acting in any way that could be detrimental to her legally.

 

[Nellibelle]

It is important to note that corrections made to a transcribed deposition* will not replace the original answers and can, in fact, create problems of their own. Following the advice of your attorney is vital before considering making any documented changes to what has been previously said by you under oath. Many attorneys will recommend that you let the deposition responses stand.




*Edit to add: Any deposition transcript review must be requested prior to completion of the deposition. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 30(e) allows for deponents to read, correct and sign transcripts of their depositions. See New York's Rule 206.11.

"Corrections made to a transcribed deposition will not replace the original answer..."

What do you think the option for review and to make changes to the transcribed deposition does? It is an oportunity to clarify an answer. The change will carry more weight upon clarification. You are wrong that most attorneys advise to let the deposition response stand. If it becomes apparrent that the one deposed may have responded in a way in which such response was vague or could be misinterpreted, most attorneys would recommend a clarification by changing such response.

 

[quincy]

"Corrections made to a transcribed deposition will not replace the original answer..."

What do you think the option for review and to make changes to the transcribed deposition does? It is an oportunity to clarify an answer. The change will carry more weight upon clarification. You are wrong that most attorneys advise to let the deposition response stand. If it becomes apparrent that the one deposed may have responded in a way in which such response was vague or could be misinterpreted, most attorneys would recommend a clarification by changing such response.

What is legally possible to do is not always the legally smartest thing to do. There can be ramifications to changing your responses in a deposition. Until you understand this, your continued guesses (especially as to what most attorneys will recommend) can harm a poster.

For an example, take a look at 18 USC §§1621 and 1623. Two or more contradictory statements made under oath is perjury. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623

Changes in deposition answers can be used to impeach testimony.

A jury may be provided the original answers given in a deposition as well as the changes that have been made to the answers. They could consider both and credibility can be called into question.

I can go on.

In other words, and seriously Nellibelle, knock it off. I think all of us are getting tired of entertaining you and your postings.

 

[latigo]

Guesses? I've attended 2 depositions with 2 different lawyers and my uncle attended a deposition in a different state and all 3 lawyers advised that you can change/correct statements made in the depo when you get the transcribed document. I believe this is pretty universal procedure in many if not all states!

If you don't wish your unschooled legal guesswork to be challenged, then stop submitting it. Attending two depositions doesn't make you or anyone else an expert on procedural/court rules.

Contrary to what someone supposedly told you, a witness CANNOT change, amend or disturb any content of the transcribed deposition, including the answers elicited from the witness.

HOWEVER, in New York and other states, IF IT IS DESIRED TO DO SO, the witness may, before signing and returning the transcription, attached thereto what is know as an "errata sheet".

There the witness can make changes both in form and in substance to his or her responses together with a satisfactory explanation for doing so. And the "more substantive the changes the more thorough and convincing must be the explanation". (See: NYCPLR Rule 3116: Riley v ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 284 AD2d 320; Schachat v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 329; Marine Trust Co. v Collins, 19 AD2d 857; Rivera v City of New York 2004 NY Slip Op 24517 [6 Misc 3d 829] December 6, 2004)

But the errata sheet does not alter the transcript.

And in all such instances the presiding trial judge is the sole arbiter of whether or not the form and substance of the witness's testimony stands as the deposition is transcribed or in conformity to the changes made on the errata sheet.

ALSO, nb if you knew anything about trial work you might know that the only way the OP's deposition is going to be published in court and meet the eyes of the judge or jury, IS if the OP makes statements in her courtroom testimony that materially differ from those made in her deposition. And there is no indication that that will occur.

 

[quincy]

In nancypowell's case, I am not sure that any of this discussion of deposition transcript correction has any relevance, because she would have needed to request a review of the transcript before the completion of the deposition if she wanted to make corrections, and it does not appear that she did that.

That said, there is an interesting article that was written by Richard G. Stuhan and Sean P. Costello about Rule 30(e), titled, "Rule 30(e): What You Don't Know Could Hurt You." It discusses the differences in how this Rule is treated in different states. Because it was published in January of 2006, there may have been changes made in how some states cited in the article now handle deposition reviews and corrections.

I am going to try to provide a link but, if it doesn't work, you can access the article through the title and authors: http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/c293bdd5-dc9c-45e6-8a36-ba9f1cf124c7/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/c551f95c-46e5-4dbc-b7ae-fbc8b1a5e295/erratasheetarticle2.pdf