A court just weighed In.
What if you could take a deposition, get a transcript, and never need a stenographer?
That’s exactly what happened in a recent case where depositions were conducted using Skribe.ai… without a court reporter in sight. But when the opposing side tried to claim thousands of dollars in costs for hiring a stenographer to re-transcribe those same depositions, a legal battle over what counts as a legitimate transcript ensued.
Would the court force the other side to pay for an unnecessary re-transcription?
Or would it recognize that a non-stenographic deposition was just as valid?
The ruling may surprise you.
The Costly Battle Over Deposition Transcripts
In Garza v. Energy Transfer Partners, attorneys used Skribe to take and transcribe key depositions. The recordings were clear, the transcripts were accurate, and everything was properly hosted for review. But opposing counsel wasn’t satisfied.
They hired a stenographic court reporter after the fact to create new transcripts of the same depositions—and then attempted to pass those costs onto the other party.
The plaintiff objected, arguing that the depositions had already been properly transcribed and that forcing them to pay for an unnecessary duplication was unfair.
The court agreed.
In a key ruling, the judge denied the costs for the redundant stenographic transcripts, affirming that non-stenographic depositions, including verbatim transcripts, are valid and that duplicating them is not a justifiable expense.
What This Means for Your Firm
This case underscores a growing shift in litigation:
✅ Courts are recognizing non-stenographic depositions – Skribe.ai’s transcription process – which includes AI plus professional human review – held up against a challenge, and the court refused to require a stenographer’s version
✅ Law firms don’t have to pay twice for the same transcript – If opposing counsel insists on hiring a court reporter for a deposition that was already transcribed, the burden is on them.
✅ You can reduce deposition costs without sacrificing quality – Skribe.ai’s technology ensures accurate, searchable transcripts at a fraction of the cost of traditional stenography.
✅ Courts are recognizing non-stenographic depositions – Skribe.ai’s transcription process – which includes AI plus professional human review – held up against a challenge, and the court refused to require a stenographer’s version
✅ Law firms don’t have to pay twice for the same transcript – If opposing counsel insists on hiring a court reporter for a deposition that was already transcribed, the burden is on them.
✅ You can reduce deposition costs without sacrificing quality – Skribe.ai’s technology ensures accurate, searchable transcripts at a fraction of the cost of traditional stenography.
Is It Time to Rethink How You Handle Depositions?
For years, the legal industry has defaulted to stenographic court reporters, often at great expense. But as this ruling shows, AI-driven deposition tools are not just cost-effective, they’re legally sound.
If you’re still relying on traditional court reporting for every deposition, you could be wasting thousands.
Want to see how Skribe.ai can save your firm time and money? Schedule a demo today.
