Gortmaker v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WESLEY GORTMAKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
5:20-CV-05067-VLD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE ERRATA
SHEET
[DOCKET NO. 22]
INTRODUCTION
This matter is pending before the court on defendant United States’
(“government”) motion to strike plaintiff Wesley Gortmaker’s errata sheet to his
deposition. See Docket No. 22. This matter is assigned to this magistrate
judge on the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See
Docket No. 21.
FACTS
Mr. Gortmaker filed suit against the government under the Federal Tort
Claims Act alleging injuries stemming from a motor vehicle accident involving
United States Forest Service employee, Special Agent Travis Lunders. See
Docket No. 1. Mr. Gortmaker asserts Agent Lunders was driving “in a negligent
and careless manner proximately causing” the car accident, which resulted in
injuries and damages. Id. at 2. Further, Mr. Gortmaker asserts the
government is liable for the negligent acts of Agent Lunders under the doctrine
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

2
of respondeat superior, “since at the time of the collision, [Agent] Lunders was
in the course and scope of his employment with the United States Forest
Service.” Id.
The facts surrounding the accident are straight forward. Agent Lunders
was traveling south on Elk Vale Road and Mr. Gortmaker was traveling east on
Homestead Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. Both parties claim they had a
green light when they collided at the Elk Vale/Homestead intersection.
During his deposition, Mr. Gortmaker testified that he first observed the
traffic light at the Elk Vale/Homestead intersection when he was leaving
Sturdevant’s Auto Parts store. Docket No. 24-1, p. 2. At that point,
Mr. Gortmaker stated the light was green and continued to be green “all the
way down to where I went across Elk Vale Road.” Id. Mr. Gortmaker testified
that when he first observed the traffic signal, he was going “less than 10” miles
per hour. Id. at 4. He testified that he was going this speed “because it’s a
short distance down there and it went downhill.” Id. Mr. Gortmaker clarified
his speed: “I really wasn’t watching the speedometer, but usually what I run
out of there when I come out of there is 10.” Id. at 4-5. Mr. Gortmaker then
stated that he slowed down when he approached the intersection to around two
miles per hour, but that the light was still green. Id. at 5-6. Mr. Gortmaker
testified that he stopped in the intersection to allow traffic traveling west on
Homestead and north on Elk Vale to pass. Id. at 7.
Following the deposition, the government provided Mr. Gortmaker with
its supplemental expert report. See Docket No. 24-2. Within this report, the
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

3
expert determined that (1) the distance between the exit of Sturdevant’s auto
parts store and the intersection was 472 feet, (2) the most time the Elk Vale/
Homestead Street traffic light would have remained green was 25 seconds, and
(3) the maximum distance Mr. Gortmaker could have travelled at 10 mph in 25
seconds was around 367 feet. Id.
After receiving this expert report, Mr. Gortmaker sent the government his
errata sheet. See Docket No. 24-4. Mr. Gortmaker wanted to change page 9,
lines 20, 22, 23, and 25 and page 10, lines 1, 2, 5, and 7, or the lines of
testimony corresponding to Mr. Gortmaker’s speed. Id. Mr. Gortmaker wished
to change his testimony to “I was going slow but I’m not sure of the exact
speed. I did not look at the speedometer.” Docket No. 24-4. Mr. Gortmaker
reasoned that “[a]fter driving on the road again at 10mph and 15 mph, I can
not with certainty, say that I was going 10 mph or less. It would have been
more accurate to say I was going between 10 mph and 20 mph from
Sturdevant’s exit to the Homestead/Elk Vale Rd. Intersection.” Id.
The government now requests that the court strike Mr. Gortmaker’s
errata sheet, arguing the “changes are material alterations that directly
contradict his deposition testimony and amount to an impermissible rewrite to
evade an answer given under oath.” Docket No. 23, p. 3. This matter is now
fully briefed and ripe for decision.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) allows a deponent “to review the
transcript or recording; and if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

4
statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.” See FED. R.
CIV. P. 30(e). Under Rule 30(e), the deponent has “30 days after being notified
by the officer that the transcript or recording is available” to do this review. Id.
“Despite this language, courts are split on the latitude to be afforded a
deponent under Rule 30(e) to change his or her testimony with no controlling
authority in the Eighth Circuit.” Jayne v. City of Sioux Falls, 4:18-CV-04088-
KES, 2020 WL 3489968, at *2 (D.S.D. June 26, 2020) (citing 8A Charles Alan
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. § Proc. Civ. § 2118 (3d ed. 2010); In re
Genetically Modified Rice Litig., 2010 WL 3938376, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 5,
2010); Harden v. Wicomico Cty., 263 F.R.D. 304, 307-08 (D. Md. 2009)).
While courts across the country may split on this issue, the District of
South Dakota has consistently favored a more limited approach. In Wigg v.
Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, after discussion on how the Tenth, Seventh, and
Second Circuits addressed substantive changes under Rule 30(e), this court
found that “the better approach is found in the opinions from the Tenth and
Seventh Circuits.” Wigg v. Sioux Falls Sch. Dist. 49-5, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1084,
1091 (D.S.D. 2003), rev’d in part on other grounds by 382 F.3d 807 (8th
Cir. 2004). With this approach, the court considers:
whether the [deponent] was cross-examined during his earlier
testimony, whether the [deponent] had access to the pertinent
evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or whether the [Rule
30(e) correction] was based on newly discovered evidence, and
whether the earlier testimony reflects confusion which the [Rule
30(e) correction] attempts to explain.
Id. at 1090 (citing Burns v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs of Jackson Cnty., 330 F.3d
1275 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted)).
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

5
In Wigg, the court held that “a deposition is not a take home
examination,” and that “[i]f a party were allowed to create material factual
disputes by altering one’s deposition testimony via an errata sheet, summary
judgment would rarely, if ever, be granted.” Id. at 1091 (quoting Greenway v.
Int’l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992)). The court further noted
that “[p]arties should not be able to evade an answer given under oath during a
deposition when it is later used against them by simply stating the opposite in
the errata sheet.” Id.
Recently, in Jayne, this court determined that “[s]taying in line with
Wigg’s narrow interpretation . . . substantive changes in an errata sheet are
permissible under Rule 30(e) only to the extent that the proposed changes are
consistent with deposition testimony.” Jayne, 2020 WL 3489968, at *4.
Further, the court noted that “Rule 30(e) changes cannot be used for
contradictory changes unless the change corrects a transcription error.” If not
for a transcription error, “the court will apply the Wigg three-factor sham
affidavit test.” Id. (citing Wigg, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 1090-92; Herndon v. U.S.
Bancorp Asset Mgmt., Inc., 4:05-CV-01446-ERW, 2007 WL 988026, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. May 11, 2007)).
Mr. Gortmaker cites Cultivos Yadran S.A. v. Rodriguez, asserting this
court should broadly interpret Rule 30(e) to allow for all substantive changes to
a deposition. Docket No. 26, p. 5; Cultivos Yadran S.A. v. Rodriguez, 258
F.R.D. 530 (S.D. Fla. 2009). But this court in Wigg and Jayne rejected this
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

6
assertion and found that “the better approach is the more limited
interpretation of Rule 30(e).” Jayne, 2020 WL 3489968, at *2.
Mr. Gortmaker seeks to clarify the speed at which he was driving “during
the total 472 feet distance verses his speed at a given point in time.” Docket
No. 26, p. 6. While defense counsel may not have asked about his speed while
driving all of Homestead Street, Mr. Gortmaker’s errata sheet amounts to an
improper “take home examination.” Wigg, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 1091.
Rule 30(e) was not intended to be used by deponents, and their legal
counsel, to conduct live tests to change or clarify their deposition testimony. In
Mr. Gortmaker’s errata sheet, he states that only after driving down the road
again did he come to the conclusion he was going between 10-20 mph. Docket
No. 24-4. This change would amount to a “take home examination,” by the
deponent and is, thus, improper. Wigg, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 1091; see also
Greenway v. Int’l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992) (“[t]he Rule
cannot be interpreted to allow one to alter what was said under oath. If that
were the case, one could merely answer the questions with no thought at all
then return home and plan artful responses.”).
Mr. Gortmaker also argues that his “errata changes do not directly
contradict [his] original testimony,” because he only provided his approximate
speed when departing Sturdevant’s and was not looking at the speedometer.
Docket No. 26, p. 4. But during deposition, when asked about how fast he was
traveling as he approached the Elk Vale/Homestead intersection,
Mr. Gortmaker testified he was going around two miles per hour. Docket
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

7
No. 24-1, p. 11. While Mr. Gortmaker may be unsure of his speed for the rest
of Homestead Street, he did provide testimony about his speed as he
approached the intersection. Thus, Mr. Gortmaker’s proposed change to “I’m
not sure of the exact speed,” reasoning that it would have been more accurate
to say he was going 10-20 mph for the entire stretch from Sturdevant’s to the
intersection, is contradictory.
Because Mr. Gortmaker’s proposed errata changes are contradictory to
his deposition testimony, and not made to correct a transcription error, “[this]
court will apply the Wigg three-factor sham affidavit test.” Jayne, 2020 WL
3489968, at *4 (Wigg, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 1090-92). First, Mr. Gortmaker’s
counsel was present at this deposition and could have cross-examined
Mr. Gortmaker on his speed or sought to clarify his responses. Nor is there
any record of Mr. Gortmaker’s counsel objecting to the government’s questions
on his speed of travel. Second, Mr. Gortmaker had access to all the pertinent
evidence at the time he gave his deposition and attempting to provide new
evidence under the guise of the “take home examination” he conducted
is unpersuasive.
Third, at no point did Mr. Gortmaker express confusion with the
questions posed to him by defense counsel at the deposition, nor does he seek
to change his testimony based on confusion. While Mr. Gortmaker’s counsel
asserts, post hoc, that because he is elderly, he is vulnerable to giving
unrealistic approximations of speed, this vulnerability was never addressed
during the deposition. Docket No. 26, p. 5. From this court’s view,
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>

8
Mr. Gortmaker understood the straightforward questions posed to him by
defense counsel and provided answers based on his personal knowledge at
that time.
Given these circumstances, this court finds Mr. Gortmaker’s errata sheet
to be both an improper “take home examination,” and a substantive change
“[in]consistent with [his] deposition testimony.” Jayne, 2020 WL 3489968, at
*4. The court notes that Mr. Gortmaker already included qualifications in his
deposition testimony such as the statement that he was “probably” driving less
than 10 miles per hour and that he “really wasn’t watching the speedometer.”
See Docket No. 24-1 at p. 4 (Gortmaker depo. at p. 9). He will be able to testify
to much the same at trial and it will be up to the finder of fact to determine
whether his testimony is credible. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to strike Mr. Gortmaker’s errata
sheet [Docket No. 22] is GRANTED.
DATED this 18th day of July, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:20-cv-05067-VLD Document 28 Filed 07/18/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>