The Badran ruling exposed a growing risk: courts are redefining admissibility without guidance from the profession that creates the record. As audio-based reporting and vendor workflows spread, efficiency arguments are replacing evidentiary law. This article offers a clear roadmap for how NCRA can act—now, in active cases, and long-term—to defend due process, professional oversight, and the integrity of the record.
Tag Archives: RemoteDepositions
When the Record Becomes Elastic – Why Badran v. Badran Misunderstood Admissibility
Badran v. Badran exposes the danger of redefining testimony after the fact. In a remote deposition, a vendor-produced transcript was altered based on audio review, adding remarks not perceived in real time as testimony. Efficiency and stipulation cannot convert recordings into evidence. Without a licensed reporter in responsible charge, the record becomes elastic—and due process collapses.
Zoom, the Record, and the Reporter – Where Ethics Are Clear and the Law Is Catching Up
As remote depositions become routine, reporters face growing pressure to act as both stenographer and Zoom host. NCRA ethics are clear: reporters cannot record or serve as videographers—but may host solely to prevent unauthorized recording or AI bots. When firms or attorneys refuse to disable ASR, the reporter’s duty is to withdraw, protecting the integrity of the record above all.
Top Court Reporting Trends to Watch in 2025 – Real Innovation, Legal Integrity, and the Return to Verbatim
The future of court reporting isn’t automated—it’s live, verbatim, and unstoppable. In 2025, certified stenographers and voice writers are shattering the shortage myth, expanding remote coverage, and using cutting-edge tools to uphold the integrity of the record. “Record now, transcribe later” isn’t innovation—it’s regression. The real revolution is happening in real time, with reporters leading the charge.
How Zoom Depositions, Consent Laws, and Competing Recordings Are a Growing Dilemma for Court Reporters
In the age of Zoom depositions, competing recordings raise more than technical concerns — they strike at the integrity of the record. When attorneys attempt to capture their own audio, they risk violating consent laws, breaching confidentiality, and undermining the court reporter’s role. Protecting the official record sometimes means halting proceedings, even when it costs time and money.
The Language of CCP 2093(a) & Why Notaries Are Not Deposition Officers
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2093(a) names notaries and deposition officers as able to administer oaths—but only certified shorthand reporters are authorized to take testimony and certify transcripts. The “notary loophole” misleads attorneys into believing oaths alone make a deposition valid. Without a CSR, the record collapses. Learn why due process demands stenographers—not shortcuts.
Who’s Really Swearing in Your Witness?
Attorneys can stipulate to many things, but not to override law. Only a judge can validate agreements that alter statutory or constitutional requirements. The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process: no person can be deprived of rights without it. When a deposition officer asks parties to “stipulate” to a remote oath, that shortcut risks invalidating the entire proceeding.
STENOIMPERIUM 