Here, upon due consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s errata sheet “runs afoul of Rule 30(e)’s…requirements.” Tourgeman, 2010 WL 4817990, at *2. Plaintiff’s sole proposed change expands and contradicts his sworn deposition testimony. Specifically, when asked at his deposition “[w]hen you received your Credit One credit card, was the credit card accompanied by an agreement such as the one you see here in Exhibit C?” Doc. No. 48-2 at 4. Plaintiff responded, “I’m sure it was something similar to this. They all are, all very similar.” Id. Plaintiff seeks to change his response to counsel’s question to: “No. The credit card was accompanied only by one sheet of paper that the credit card was stuck to using some type of gluey material. Prior to filing this lawsuit, I have never received exhibit C.” Doc. No. 48-7 at 5. Plaintiff does not directly respond to Defendant’s arguments in his opposition to the instant motion, aside from summarily stating that he “signed the Errata in an effort for the truth to come forward with no confusion[.]” Doc. No. 52 at 2. However, “[c]hanging ‘yes’ to ‘no’ and ‘correct’ to ‘no not correct’ are paradigmatic examples of contradiction, rather than correction.” Tourgeman, 2010 WL 4817990, at *2 (citing Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co., 397 F.3d at 1226). As such, the Court finds that the errata to Plaintiff’s February 1, 2018 deposition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 30(e), or with binding Ninth Circuit authority. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike the errata to Plaintiff’s February 1, 2018 deposition. See Greer, 2017 WL 2389567, at *7 (“To allow such changes would eliminate the purpose of deposition testimony, which is to elicit a witness’s testimony under oath, in a recorded setting, subject to questioning without coaching from any other person.”).