What Is an Errata Sheet?

Your batch of chocolate chip cookies won’t turn out very good if you think someone is telling you to add flower instead of flour. Homonyms—words that sound or look the same but have different meanings—can cause trouble when spoken words are transcribed. 

If an error like this is found in a deposition transcript, it can be corrected by adding an errata sheet. Rather than editing the original document, an errata sheet is attached, identifying the error, what correction is needed, and a rationale for the change. 

Errata sheets can be key to achieving fair judgments and settlements that rest on the precision of transcribed witness testimony.

When Is an Errata Sheet Used in Legal Proceedings?

The most common use of errata sheets is with deposition transcripts. Deposition errata sheets:

• Often include lengthy questioning
• May be more informal than courtroom examination
• Are key throughout litigation stages, including negotiations and trial

For these reasons, it’s crucial to ensure that the transcript reflects the speaker’s intent regarding misheard or misunderstood words. 

Errata sheets can accompany any legal or formal transcript that relies on exact, verbatim capture of the spoken word, including depositions. 

Key Components of an Errata Sheet

Exactly what is an errata sheet deposition correction, and what is required? The first thing to be aware of is that an errata sheet does not replace the original transcript—instead, it’s added as a supplement. 

Errata sheets generally contain: 

• Page and line references
• The original vs. corrected testimony (word, clause, or sentence)
• The reason for the change or clarification
• Signature of the deponent
• Notary stamp and signature

How the Errata Sheet Process Works

Rule 30 (Depositions by Oral Examination) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the process for transcript review and corrections.¹ State and local jurisdictions may have different procedures or time constraints. 

Reviewing the Deposition Transcript

Under Rule 30, the deponent, witness, or their attorney must proactively request review of the transcript and/or recording—it’s not automatic. So long as the request is made before or during the deposition process, the court reporter or transcriptionist must make a copy available for the witness’s review once it’s drafted. 

Documenting Corrections or Clarifications

The witness or deponent reviews the full transcript and identifies any locations where their testimony was not accurately captured. Each individual correction must be documented by page and line number and accompanied by a reason for the correction. 

Submitting the Errata Sheet Within Deadlines

The review period is 30 days after the transcript is provided for review to the deponent. Within that deadline, the deponent must fill out an official errata sheet, sign and date it (often in front of a notary), and return it to the court reporter. 

The court reporter then includes the errata sheet with the final official transcript. The accompanying certificate must note if a review was requested and whether corrections were indicated.

Rules and Limitations for Errata Sheets

Something to keep in mind for transcript reviews and errata sheets is that they don’t open up an opportunity to rewrite history. The intent is to ensure that transcripts are as accurate as possible, which means allowing for necessary corrections and clarifications vs. taking a second bite at the deposition apple.

Minor vs. Substantive Changes

Small clarifications via errata sheet usually don’t raise eyebrows. For instance, there will generally be no issue with minor transcript corrections, such as: 

• Typographical errors
• Spelling corrections to names, places, homonyms, etc.
• Clarification of ambiguous answers

There is also the possibility to make more substantive changes—including to facts in evidence—when explained with a logical reason for the misunderstanding or change. This may mean: 

• Changing a “yes” to a “no” or vice versa
• Changing an answer due to a misunderstanding of the question during deposition
• Adding further information or context to a response
• Correcting a factual mistake that hadn’t been researched prior to the deposition

However, judges or opposing counsel may push back against major changes when a transcript is under scrutiny.

Requirements for Good Faith and Transparency

Each court can interpret Rule 30 (or their jurisdiction’s witness review guidelines) differently, so the further you move away from minor clarifications, the more difficult it may be to have errata sheet changes accepted.²

If changes appear to be informed by case strategy or a legal team’s desire to contradict a deponent’s oral testimony, the court may strike the changes, or the trier of fact may disregard them.³

Ensuring Accuracy in the Legal Record

Transcript review and the use of errata sheets are critical steps to ensuring accuracy in the legal record. This is particularly key for deposition transcripts that are used throughout the discovery, case strategy, negotiation, and trial stages. 

In addition to requesting a witness review cycle for critical depositions, you can achieve accuracy and timely turnaround of transcripts by working with an established partner. For nearly 30 years, U.S. Legal Support has provided litigation services to nationwide attorneys and firms of all sizes. 

Reach out to learn more about our remote deposition and deposition summary services, as well as how we can help with your other litigation support needs, including court reporting, realtime transcription, and translation. 

Sources: 

1. Cornell Law School. Rule 30. Depositions by Oral Examination. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30
2. Federal Bar Association. Rule 30(E):  Getting the Last Word. https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Errata-Williams-6-pdf.pdf
3. American Bar Association. Pretrial Discovery Strategies: Defending Against a Deponent’s Errata Sheet Before, During, and After a Deposition. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/commercial-business/deposition-errata-sheet/

Julie Feller

Julie Feller is the Vice President of Marketing at U.S. Legal Support where she leads innovative marketing initiatives. With a proven track record in the legal industry, Juie previously served at Abacus Data Systems (now Caret Legal) where she played a pivotal role in providing cutting-edge technology platforms and services to legal professionals nationwide.