There is a split in authority as to whether errata may be used to make substantive changes to deposition testimony. The Ninth Circuit has ruled against making substantive changes.
Asia Vital Components Co., LTD. (“AVC”) ran afoul of that ruling by including nearly two dozen substantive changes in its errata, including changing “yes” to “no,” changing the names of various corporate entities, and changing some key words. The Court agreed with the opposing party’s assertion that the changes appeared designed “to limit AVC’s exposure in the United States by, for example, presenting AVC’s offices in Fremont as belonging to a separate entity… altering customer names, shipping location (from U.S. to Hong Kong), and the names of the products sold in the U.S., and changing ‘shipped’ to ‘sold’ so that AVC can attempt to escape liability due to importation of the accused AVC products into the U.S.” But even without any improper motive, the changes were not permissible. Regardless of intent, errata that contradict the original deposition testimony are not allowed.