Our View: Careful Digital Reporting Is Clearly Lawful in Texas

Earlier this year a trial court in Montgomery County, Texas, excluded from evidence a non-stenographic deposition transcript in a civil case pending in that court.  In response to this order, opponents of non-stenographic recording have argued that this ruling should be extended to all non-stenographic recordings.

As practiced by amici deposition services providers, the only significant difference between a digitally reported deposition and a ‘traditional’ stenographically reported deposition is the recording device employed.

Because of the important issues at stake, Patrick Hughey, the plaintiff in the Montgomery County case, filed a mandamus action in the Texas Supreme Court, In re Patrick Hughey, No. 25-0463, to ask the state’s highest court to confirm under the facts of that case that the transcript of the non-stenographically recorded deposition should have been deemed admissible. Because of the importance of this issue and to combat the erroneous rhetoric of opponents of non-stenographic reporting, Esquire Deposition Solutions — along with market competitors U.S. Legal Support and Veritext — recently filed an amicus curiae brief explaining how amici use digital technologies to capture deposition testimony and why amici’s transcript-creation processes are clearly lawful under Texas law.

Digital Reporting Today

Before explaining why non-stenographically recorded depositions are lawful in Texas, it is important to understand what is meant by the term “non-stenographic.” The term “stenographic” denotes the use of a stenograph machine by a trained stenographer. “Non-stenographic” is a catch-all term for every other method of capturing the spoken word.

Obviously, the term “non-stenographic” can cover a lot of ground. Equally obvious is the fact that, in 2025, what we are really talking here about is a deposition that is captured by a digital recording device. But here again, there are many ways to use digital technologies to capture deposition testimony. Some are highly reliable, some are not.

This is how Esquire Deposition Solutions and fellow amici use digital recording technologies to capture deposition testimony:

• In-room human professional: A trained court reporter, certified by the American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers, is always physically present to manage the deposition, identify speakers, clarify the record, and handle exhibits.
• Superior capture: Amici uses multi-channel microphones for each participant, plus real-time “confidence monitoring” ensures clean audio and isolates overlapping speech.
• Structured workflow: Trained court reporters make detailed, time-aligned annotations during the deposition to support the creation of a precise transcription at a later time.
• Proven technology, not generative artificial intelligence: Transcripts are produced by credentialed professionals using decades-old, accepted speech-recognition/computer-aided tools, then rigorously reviewed, proofed, and certified against the digital audio recording.
• Professional accountability: Certification by the AAERT and established practices ensure accuracy, impartiality, confidentiality, and security.

As practiced by amici deposition services providers, the only significant difference between a digitally reported deposition and a “traditional” stenographically reported deposition is the recording device employed. One uses a digital recorder, and the other a stenograph machine.

Yet even that difference is not as great as it might seem because, in modern practice, many stenographers also use a digital recording device they can consult for clarifications if needed. A combination of notes, recordings, and established technology is used to produce a certified deposition transcript, regardless of the method of testimony capture.

In all cases, there is a trained professional in the room managing the deposition.

Texas Clearly Permits Digital Reporting

Looking to Texas law, it is clear that the state’s court rules have long permitted alternatives to stenographically produced deposition transcripts.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 199.1(c) states that any party may record an oral deposition by non-stenographic means. That rule reads, in pertinent part:

(c) Non-stenographic recording. Any party may cause a deposition upon oral examination to be recorded by other than stenographic means, including videotape recording.

Elsewhere, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 203.6(a) provides that non-stenographic recordings—or their written transcriptions—may be used to the same extent as stenographic depositions. The rule provides, in pertinent part:

203.6 Use. (a) Non-stenographic recording; transcription. A non-stenographic recording of an oral deposition, or a written transcription of all or part of such a recording, may be used to the same extent as a deposition taken by stenographic means.

There is additional language in Rule 203.6(a) stating that a “court, for good cause shown, may require that the party seeking to use a non-stenographic recording or written transcription first obtain a complete transcript of the deposition recording from a certified court reporter.” This exception, however, merely proves the general rule: in the absence of a court order supported by good cause, the deposition transcript need not be created by a stenographer.

These rules, together, could not be clearer. In Texas, parties may create non-stenographically recorded depositions and use them to the same extent as stenographically created depositions. In fact, Texas has used, in limited, court-specific pilot projects, electronic recording of testimony as far back as the 1980s.

On the other side of the mandamus proceeding are parties making strained readings of legislative intent from failed legislation, and somewhat hyperbolic arguments about the scourge of shoddy deposition transcripts created by artificial intelligence. That is, however, not remotely close to the digital reporting services offered by Esquire and the other amici deposition services providers mentioned above. In all cases, our digital reporters are in the room, managing the proceeding, identifying speakers, clarifying the record, and handling exhibits as they always have done.

Opponents of the careful digital reporting services offered by Esquire and amici are inviting the Texas high court to strike an unnecessary, self-inflicted wound. There is today a significant and growing shortage of licensed stenographers in Texas and nationally, causing delays and higher costs, especially in rural areas. Non-stenographic reporters will expand capacity, improve timeliness, and aid courts facing coverage gaps, supporting access to justice. We’re hopeful the court will take this opportunity to rule that Texas law already contains the solutions to these problems.