Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV07210, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07210    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Basilia Puerto (individually, and as Successor in Interest of decedent Javier Jaime Puerto) filed a Motion for Order that Deposition Testimony May Be Taken Electronically Instead of Stenographically.  Plaintiff seeks an order that applies to all parties in this action.  (See Motion at p. 2.)  Cross-Defendant CHA Hollywood Medical Center LP opposes the motion.

When taking a deposition, “[u]nless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise, the testimony, as well as any stated objections, shall be taken stenographically.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §. 2025.330, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff argues that “electronic recording of depositions is often more convenient, more efficient, and less expensive than stenographic reporting,” and he notes “the well-known stenographic reporter shortage and the reliability of electronic recording” and “logistical problems and inefficiencies or being forced to use a stenographic reporter to record deposition testimony.”  (Motion at p. 7.)  However, Plaintiff argues only briefly and generally.  There is no showing that there are any specific problems with stenographic reporting for depositions in this case.

Additionally, as noted by Cross-Defendant (Opposition at p. 4), a stenographic transcript will still be required in order to offer deposition testimony as evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.340, subd. (m) [“If no stenographic record of the deposition testimony has previously been made, the party offering an audio or video recording of that testimony under Section 2025.620 shall accompany that offer with a stenographic transcript prepared from that recording.”].)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that deposition transcripts can be unreliable, and “[w]ith a digital recording, the witness or counsel can listen and correct a transcript as needed, or the court can listen and make a ruling if the parties cannot agree on what was said.”  (Reply at p. 2.)  Plaintiff’s counsel observes that “[i]n most depositions [he has] attended in the last ten years, the stenographic reporters made audio recordings of the deposition as a backup.”  (Ibid.)  This is not a reason to eschew the requirement of stenographic reporting because the party noticing the deposition may record the deposition testimony by audio or video technology as long as that intention is properly noticed.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.330, subd. (c).)

The motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 1st day of February 2024