Court says that party cannot use AI instead of a human stenographer at depositions

Plaintiff asked the court for permission to take 13 depositions using video recordings and AI transcription software (instead of a human stenographer), with a notary and videographer serving as the deposition officer and certifying the transcripts. Plaintiff argued this method would comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure while reducing costs from $4,000 to $1,500 per deposition.

Defendant did not oppose the use of video or the proposed officer but objected to the use of AI to produce and certify transcripts, citing concerns about accuracy and confidentiality, especially under the terms of a protective order in the case.

The magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s request, and plaintiff took the matter up with the district court judge, claiming the ruling conflicted with Rule 1’s emphasis on inexpensive litigation and improperly limited who may serve as a deposition officer.

The district judge overruled those objections, holding that the magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court emphasized that Rule 30(b)(3)(A) permits judicial discretion over how depositions are recorded and that plaintiff’s proposed method, though potentially cheaper, was untested and raised legitimate concerns about the secure handling of confidential information. The court rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant had waived confidentiality by using Google Drive for its own documents, and explained that the number of planned depositions made it reasonable to consider how any problems with the proposed method could grow larger if repeated. The court concluded that while the Federal Rules promote efficiency, they do not require acceptance of methods that undermine reliability or violate protective orders.

Black v. City of San Diego, 2025 WL 1908072 (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2025)