Recent Decision from U.S. District Court in Dallas Highlights Unique Role of Court Reporters

In a recent decision lauding the work of court reporters, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a defendant’s “Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 30(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The attorney for the defendant, who requested to review the transcript of his expert’s deposition after the court reporter had concluded the deposition, sought the transcript so he could provide it to his expert for his review. In so doing, he posited that the court reporter “had no standing or authority to interpret the rule on when a deposition is completed.” The court reporter, who had been steadfast in refusing to provide the transcript as the attorney was not in compliance with the requirements of the rule, did not reply to the attorney’s motion.

In his opinion, in Cypress Property v. Jallad & R. Investments, LLC, 2023 WL 3021075 (N.D. Tex. April 20, 2023), United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan determined that the rule provides no official words by which to end a deposition and thusly, the court reporter’s declaration that “we are off the record at 3:36 p.m.” was sufficient to officially conclude the deposition.

First, as a tacit admonishment to defense counsel for his assertion that the court reporter did not have authority to end the deposition, Judge Horan provided authority for the unique role of court reporters:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(a) provides, as to “Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken”:

(a) Within the United States.

(1) In General. Within the United States or a territory or insular possession subject to United States jurisdiction, a deposition must be taken before:

(A) an officer authorized to administer oaths either by federal law or by the law in the place of examination; or

(B) a person appointed by the court where the action is pending to administer oaths and take testimony.

(2) Definition of “Officer.” The term “officer” in Rules 30, 31, and 32 includes a person appointed by the court under this rule or designated by the parties under Rule 29(a).

Then Judge Horan analyzed the procedure of ending a deposition.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(5), 30(e), and 30(f) state:

(b) Notice of the Deposition; Other Formal Requirements.

(5) Officer’s Duties.

(A) Before the Deposition. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28. The officer must begin the deposition with an on-the-record statement that includes:

(i) the officer’s name and business address;

(ii) the date, time, and place of the deposition;

(iii) the deponent’s name;

(iv) the officer’s administration of the oath or affirmation to the deponent; and

(v) the identity of all persons present.

....

(C) After the Deposition. At the end of a deposition, the officer must state on the record that the deposition is complete and must set out any stipulations made by the attorneys about custody of the transcript or recording and of the exhibits, or about any other pertinent matters.

....

(e) Review by the Witness; Changes.

(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:

(A) to review the transcript or recording; and

(B) if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them.

Before ruling, Judge Horan noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 neither authorizes a motion to compel a court reporter to do anything regarding review of transcripts nor authorizes a court to impose sanctions on, or order payment of a party’s attorneys’ fees by, a court reporter.

In addressing the substance of the motion nonetheless, Judge Horan, noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 does not provide a script by which the court reporter must officially declare a deposition complete, ruled that the court reporter alerting the parties that they were off the record was sufficient.

We’ve been lauding our court reporters for their humanity and their adeptness for some time. We are glad the judiciary is doing the same.