Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lee v. Henrico County

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

March 15, 2019

JEANETTA LEE, Plaintiff,
v.
HENRICO COUNTY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ROBERT E. PAYNE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's MOTION TO STRIKE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO ERRATA SHEET (ECF No. 43) (the "MOTION") . For the reasons set forth on the record at the Final Pretrial Conference, and as set out more fully below, the MOTION will be granted in part and denied in part.

         BACKGROUND

         The MOTION arises in the course of a Title VII race discrimination case in which Jeanetta Lee ("Lee") alleges that Henrico County discriminated against her on the basis of her race when she was not selected for promotion. Lee also alleges that Henrico County retaliated against her in violation of Title VII. See generally Am. Compl. (ECF No. 33). Following her deposition in the case, Lee filed an errata sheet on which she attempted to correct portions of her deposition transcript. See ECF No. 44, Ex. B. Henrico County objects to two changes made on Lee's errata sheet (ECF No. 44 at 2):

         (1) The deposition transcript at page 99 ("the page 99 change") reads as follows:

Question: "Were you aware that there's a grievance procedure, and do you know whether this concern you had would have been appropriate for filing a grievance?"
Lee's Answer: "I was aware. And it probably would have been appropriate, but I didn't feel comfortable." (Lee dep. 99:5-10, ECF No. 44, Ex. A).
On the errata sheet, Lee states: "I think I also added, I didn't trust it." (ECF No. 44, Ex. B).

         (2) The deposition transcript at page 141 ("the page 141 change") reads as follows:

Question: "Okay. Let me ask you this question going back, with respect to Paula Reid, you don't have any reason to believe that Paula Reid intentionally discriminated against you; do you?"
Lee's Answer: "No, I do not. ..." (Lee dep. 141:19-142:1, ECF No. 44, Ex. A)
On the errata sheet, Lee states: "Yes, I believe it was intentional, but not malicious." (ECF No. 44, Ex. B).

         Henrico County moves to strike both of these changes on the errata sheet. Lee has responded, and the matter is now ripe for decision.

         Fed. R. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.