Bartos v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

4 Citing cases

  1. Intervet, Inc. v. Mileutis Ltd.

    Civil Action 15-1371 (ZNQ) (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Bartos v. Pennsylvania, No. CIV 1:08-CV-0366, 2010 WL 1657284, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2010). As a procedural matter, the rule permits a deponent only “30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which: (A) to review the transcript or recording; and (B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.”

  2. In re Injectafer Prods. Liab. Litig.

    Civil Action 19-276 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 15, 2022)

    That said, review of substantive changes under Rule 30(e) must guard against potential abuse, and must limit changes that are made for “tactical reasons.” Bartos v. Pennsylvania, 2010 WL 1657284, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2010).

  3. Pope v. Bayer Materialscience LLC

    Civil Action No. 15-422 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2016)

    This is especially true where the contradicted testimony is material to the issues in the case, the testimony was given in response to careful and repeated questioning, and there is no indication that the witness was confused by the questioning. Id.; see also Bartos v. Pennsylvania, 2010 WL 1657284, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2010) ("Thus, it has been said that the purpose of an errata sheet is to correct alleged inaccuracies in what the deponent said at his deposition, not to modify what the deponent said for tactical reasons or to reflect what he wishes that he had said.") Yeh recalled many meetings since July 2012 that showed the breakdown of the age demographics of the company globally in the United States. (Yeh Dep. 26-27.

  4. Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services, Inc.

    CASE NO. 08-CV-1392 JLS (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Granting motion to strike contradictory portions of errata sheet

    Garciav. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233, 1242 n. 5 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting Greenway v. Int'l Paper Co., 144 F.R.D. 322, 325 (W.D. La. 1992)); accord Bartos v. Pennsylvania, 2010 WL 1657284, at *5-6 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2010); Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Ranger Enters., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 2d 878, 883-84 (W.D. Wis. 2009); Wyeth v. Lupin Ltd., 252 F.R.D. 295, 296-97 (D. Md. 2008); Donald M. Durkin Contracting, Inc. v. City of Newark, 2006 WL 2724882, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2006); Adams v. Allied Sec. Holdings, 236 F.R.D. 651, 652 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Rule 30(e)(1) provides: