The Language of CCP 2093(a) & Why Notaries Are Not Deposition Officers

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to the integrity of depositions in California, precision in language matters. Attorneys, court reporters, and judges all rely on statutes that define authority, responsibility, and admissibility. One of the most frequently cited provisions is California Code of Civil Procedure § 2093(a).

It states:

“Every court, every judge, clerk of any court, every justice, every notary public, and every officer or person authorized to take testimony in any action or proceeding, or to decide upon evidence, has the power to administer oaths or affirmations.”

At first glance, this language seems broad. It sweeps in a wide array of officials—courts, judges, clerks, justices, notaries, and anyone “authorized to take testimony.” But as with most legal text, the nuance lies in what those roles actually entail. And it’s that nuance that makes the difference between a valid, enforceable deposition transcript and one that collapses under challenge.

Two Distinct Groups Named

Breaking down CCP 2093(a), we see two distinct categories of authority:

  1. Notary publics in California
    • Explicitly included as individuals with the power to administer oaths or affirmations.
  2. Officers or persons authorized to take testimony or decide upon evidence
    • This broader category includes certified shorthand reporters (CSRs), referees, arbitrators, administrative hearing officers, and judges conducting evidentiary hearings.

The statute lumps them together under the umbrella of “power to administer oaths,” but the responsibilities of each group diverge sharply.

Notaries’ Authority in California

California notaries public are regulated under the Government Code, primarily § 8205(a)(2), which clearly states that notaries may administer oaths and affirmations. That authority is incorporated into CCP 2093.

But it’s a mistake to conflate oath-giving with record-making. Notaries in California:

  • Can administer oaths and affirmations.
  • Can verify a person’s identity by checking government-issued identification.
  • Cannot take testimony in legal proceedings, create a verbatim record, or certify a deposition transcript.

Unless a notary also happens to be a licensed CSR, they lack authority to function as a deposition officer.

CSRs – Deposition Officers by Law

Contrast that with certified shorthand reporters. Under CCP § 2093(b)(1), CSRs are specifically empowered to administer oaths and affirmations. But their role goes further.

  • CCP § 2025.320 defines a “deposition officer” as a person who is a CSR in good standing.
  • The Business & Professions Code § 8025 et seq. establishes the licensing and regulatory framework for CSRs.
  • CSRs are trained, licensed, and held accountable not only to swear in witnesses but to take testimony, preserve the record, and certify transcripts.

This dual authority is what makes stenographic reporters indispensable. We are simultaneously officers of the court (administering oaths) and guardians of the record (producing certified transcripts).

Why the Distinction Matters

The difference between notaries and CSRs is not academic—it has real legal consequences.

  • A CSR provides both the oath and the record. If challenged, the transcript stands on the certification of a licensed officer authorized by statute.
  • A notary can administer the oath, but they cannot take down testimony or certify a deposition. If no CSR is present, what you have is an unsworn recording or uncertified notes. That is not a deposition under California law.

The “Notary Loophole” Problem

Some litigation support companies have tried to exploit this distinction. They advertise cheaper, streamlined deposition services by sending a notary to “swear in” a witness remotely while relying on audio or video recordings to serve as the “record.”

On the surface, this looks like efficiency. In reality, it’s a legal minefield.

  • Chain of authority is broken. The notary may have given the oath, but they were not authorized to take testimony.
  • Transcript is uncertified. A recording can be transcribed later, but without a CSR’s certification, it lacks statutory admissibility.
  • Challenges are inevitable. If opposing counsel objects, courts may exclude the record for failure to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure.

For an in-depth case study of what can go wrong when the notary loophole is exploited, see my article “The Moment the Notary Loophole Was Unleashed in a Firestorm”, which documents legal fallout from improper use of notaries in remote oaths.

Remote Depositions and the Statutory Framework

California law has evolved to recognize modern technology. CCP § 2025.310 allows for depositions by telephone or other remote electronic means. But the statute carefully maintains guardrails:

  • Subdivision (e) explicitly states it “does not change who may lawfully serve as a deposition officer or who may administer oaths under Section 2093.”
  • In other words, the mode of communication (Zoom, phone, video) can change, but the authority to administer oaths and take testimony does not.

This is where companies pushing the notary model mislead attorneys. Yes, CCP 2093 recognizes notaries as capable of administering oaths. But nothing in the law expands their authority into deposition work. That remains the exclusive domain of CSRs.

Due Process and Admissibility

Why does this distinction exist in the first place? Because due process demands more than convenience.

The U.S. Constitution’s 5th Amendment prohibits depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment extends the same guarantee to the states.

Depositions are a key part of due process. They are sworn testimony taken under the authority of law, preserved in a record that can be used at trial. That record must be accurate, verifiable, and certified.

As I explain in my StenoImperium article “Not Optional – Why Stenographers Are Essential to the Constitution and Your Freedom”, stenographers are not mere record-keepers—they are constitutional safeguards whose role underpins due process, accountability, and the ability of litigants to appeal and access justice.

If we reduce depositions to a recording handled by someone without statutory authority, we undermine the very due process those amendments protect.

Practical Risks for Attorneys

Attorneys who lean on notary-based deposition services open themselves to multiple risks:

  1. Admissibility challenges
    Opposing counsel can move to strike testimony on the basis that it wasn’t taken by a qualified deposition officer.
  2. Identity verification gaps
    Notaries verify ID, but without proper deposition protocols, there may be no record of how identity was confirmed.
  3. Ethical exposure
    Attorneys could be accused of violating professional responsibility by knowingly using improper procedures.
  4. Case strategy collapse
    A key deposition tossed out because of procedural defects can sink an otherwise strong case.

Bottom Line

Let’s be clear:

  • Yes, notaries in California may administer oaths and affirmations.
  • No, notaries are not authorized to take testimony in depositions. That authority is reserved for certified shorthand reporters under CCP § 2025.320 and Business & Professions Code § 8025 et seq.
  • Result: If a notary administers the oath but no CSR is present, you do not have a deposition transcript that meets California’s requirements.

A Call to Defend the Record

Court reporters must educate the bar and bench. Attorneys may assume that if someone can give an oath, they can also serve as a deposition officer. CCP 2093 makes it clear that isn’t true.

Our role is not optional. We aren’t just there to press “record.” We are there to safeguard due process by ensuring testimony is taken lawfully, preserved accurately, and certified with authority.

The next time you hear a vendor advertise that a notary can “handle” a deposition, remember: they can give an oath, but they cannot take testimony. And without testimony lawfully taken, there is no record worth defending.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

This article reflects my perspective and analysis as a court reporter and eyewitness. It is not legal advice, nor is it intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney.

This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment