New Jersey court reporters noted with interest a September 2008 decision regarding videotaping of depositions. A plaintiff wanted to compel the videotaping of her deposition over the objections of the defendant’s attorney. The Honorable Rachelle Harz, Bergen County superior court judge, has ruled that the videotaping cannot be prevented.
The Value of the Written Transcript
Judge Harz made a point of saying that videotaped depositions did not remove the requirements for stenographic transcripts prepared by qualified New Jersey court reporters. The only addition to the transcript is the requirement that the name, address and firm of the video operator must be stated on record prior to the swearing in of the witnesses.
New Jersey court reporters were pleased by this decision. There have been unfortunate cases where decisions have been made that allow technology such as digital recordings to take the place of transcripts prepared by certified court reporters. These decisions are almost always reversed years later when the courts see the problems created by the absence of a professional and disinterested record keeper.
The Value of Videotape
The plaintiff’s attorney asserted that the videotape was a necessary part of a complete deposition. The plaintiff had suffered debilitating injuries, allegedly as a result of improper treatment in the emergency room of the hospital who was the defendant. Her speech and movement difficulties were part of her situation, it was stated, and a complete picture of her condition wouldn’t be adequately described by a reading of the transcript.
There is truth in this statement. Transcripts prepared by New Jersey court reporters are deliberately written to be impartial documentation of the proceedings. They are accurate records of the spoken word and often contain notes about the speaker’s actions as well, but aren’t designed to capture emotion or rhythms of speech.
To be fair, video is not a disinterested observer. It is human nature to change behavior when on camera. The defending attorney’s objection was that the presence of video would interfere with her ability to take an accurate deposition. The judge noted that it would also prevent an overly forceful method of questioning.
Two Media Working Together
The true value of videotaped depositions is not to replace transcripts prepared by New Jersey court reporters but to supplement them. Each record of the proceeding brings different information and together they form a picture more complete than either would create alone.
This is a perfect of example of how changing technology doesn’t threaten the court reporting profession but enhances it. Court reporters can use technology such as video, digital audio, and speech recognition to augment their abilities as a professional documenter of the spoken word. By embracing all new developments in record keeping methods, court reporters can serve better in their roles as guardian of the spoken word.