Rule 207 Signing and Filing Depositions

(Revised June 1, 1995) Paragraph (a) Paragraph (a), as adopted in 1967, was derived from former Rule 19-6(4), with some changes. Former Rule 19-6(4) contemplated that all depositions would be transcribed, that unless reading was waived by the parties and the deponent all depositions would be read to or by the deponent, and that all depositions would be signed by the deponent unless signature was waived, or the deponent was ill or could not be found, or refused to sign. Paragraph (a) of the rule as adopted in 1967 contemplated that the contents of a deposition will not always warrant the expense of having it transcribed. It provided that if the deposition were transcribed, it had to be made available to the deponent for examination and changes, if any, unless the parties and deponent waived signature. Thus the new rule substituted a single waiver for the two provided in former Rule 19-6(4). The procedure was further simplified in 1981 when the paragraph was amended to eliminate the requirement that the deponent sign the deposition unless he is ill, cannot be found, or refuses to sign, or unless signature is waived by the parties and by the deponent. Under the paragraph as amended, if the deposition is transcribed, the officer must notify the deponent that it is available for his inspection, and that after inspecting it he may make such changes as he wishes. If the deponent does not appear or make arrangements to inspect the deposition, after four weeks the officer will certify the deposition and it will be useable as if it had been inspected and signed by the deponent. Supreme Court Rule 207(a) currently permits a deponent to make changes in both the form and substance of the answers which he or she gives under oath at the time of a deposition. The potential for testimonial abuse has become increasingly evident as witnesses submit lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony is drastically altered, including changing affirmative responses to negative and the reverse. LaSalle National Bank v. 53rd-Ellis Currency Exchange, Inc., 249 Ill. App. 3d 415, 433-36 (1st Dist. 1993). This rule has been amended to permit “corrections” only under circumstances where the deponent believes the court reporter has inaccurately reported or transcribed an answer or answers. Testimony accurately reported and transcribed at a deposition may not be subsequently revised by the deponent. No change is made regarding existing law as to the uses of deposition testimony at trial or hearing for impeachment, as an evidentiary or judicial admission, or for any other permitted purpose. See Rule 212; Hansen v. Ruby Construction Co., 155 Ill. App. 3d 475, 480-82 (1st Dist. 1987); Caponi v. Larry’s 66, 236 Ill. App. 3d 660, 665-67, 671-73 (2d Dist. 1992). Paragraph (b) Paragraph (b) of this rule does away with the requirement of former Rule 19-6(5)(a) that all evidence depositions be transcribed and filed. When no party cares to have the deposition transcribed and filed, there is no reason for requiring the party taking the deposition to undergo the expense of transcription and filing. Certification, rather than certification and filing, establishes authenticity under the new provision. Otherwise the language of former Rule 19-6(5)(a) is unchanged. Subparagraph (b)(2) is derived from former Rule 19-6(5)(b). The language is unchanged.