v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641 (N.D.Ill.1981), included as a reason for its denial of the defendant’s motion to strike certain errata sheets that the original answers to the deposition would remain part of the record and could be read at trial, stating that “[t]he witness who changes his testimony on a material matter between the giving of his deposition and his appearance at trial may be impeached by his former answers, and the cross-examiner and the jury are likely to be keenly interested in the reasons he changed his testimony.” In addition, district courts have provided another safeguard against abuse by allowing the deposing party to reopen the examination if the changes render the deposition useless or incomplete without additional testimony. See Tingley, 152 F.Supp.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); Perkasie Indus. Corp. v. Advance Transformer,
holding that cjourts generally construe rule 30e broadly to permit any changes to the deposition even those having the effect of contradicting the original answers regardless of how unconvincing the deponents explanation for making the changes might be holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case holding that in light of the trial courts inquiry the defendants verbal responses and the defendants answers to the questions on the transcript of plea the trial court did determine that defendant was fully informed of the consequences of his choice to enter an alford plea holding to prove possession the state must show that a defendant possessed a certain substance the substance was illegal and he had knowledge of the presence of the substance holding that rule 30e allowed deponent to change the substance of his answers but reconvening the depositions for the limited purpose of inquiring into the reasons for the changed answers and where the changes originated