EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that courts need not strike contradictory errata revisions “if sufficiently persuasive reasons are given, if the proposed amendments truly reflect [the original testimony], or if other circumstances” justify the amendments
• noting that courts refuse to consider alterations to deposition testimony that are submitted after a summary judgment motion is filed
• finding that the failure to provide a statement of reasons along with a proposed change to a deposition suffices to strike the proposed change
• finding that “ ‘sham affidavit’ cases . . . provide useful guidance”
• discussing the importance of the court reporter’s certification to prove that changes to a transcript were requested within 30 days
• finding district court did not err in denying fraudulent inducement claim on a Rule 52(c) judgment where “State Steel had failed to prove a material misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).