AB2290 requires that testimony recorded by stenographic means be transcribed unless the parties agree otherwise, and makes the stenographic transcript the official record when both stenographic and audio/video recordings exist. The bill allocates transcription costs to the party who noticed the deposition by default, preserves a court’s authority to reallocate costs for good cause, and creates specific rules about who may obtain copies and when.
Those changes touch everyday litigation logistics: who budgets for depositions, how reporters store notes, how parties access audio/video recordings, and how courts resolve disputes over record availability and payment. For law firms, reporters, and court clerks this shifts predictable workflows and raises new operational questions about timing, notification, and enforcement of payment judgments.
At a Glance
What It Does
Makes transcription the default for stenographically recorded depositions, assigns cost responsibility to the party that noticed the deposition unless a court orders otherwise, and designates the stenographic transcript as the official record when both stenographic and audio/video recordings exist. It also prescribes retention periods for reporter notes and rules for sharing audio/video recordings and transcripts among parties.
Who It Affects
Civil litigants and their counsel who take or defend depositions, court reporters and deposition officers, law firms that routinely notice depositions, and courts that resolve cost-shifting and enforcement disputes. Deponents and parties who rely on audio/video-only records are also affected.
Why It Matters
The bill changes defaults that govern deposition logistics and cost allocation, reducing ambiguity over the official record but increasing up-front costs for the noticing party and operational obligations for reporters and deposition officers. That matters for budgeting, discovery strategy, and evidence preservation ahead of trial and appeal.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2290 creates a new default: when testimony is recorded by stenographic means, the deposition must be transcribed unless the parties specifically agree not to. By making transcription the baseline, the bill standardizes what most courts and lawyers will treat as the authoritative written record.
It also clarifies that, where both stenographic and audio/video recordings exist, the stenographic transcript controls at trial and on appeal.
The bill assigns the initial cost of producing the transcript to the party who noticed the deposition, but leaves room for a court to shift or share that cost on a showing of good cause. It preserves an existing right (referenced to section 2025.320) for other parties or the deponent to obtain their own copy of the transcript at their own expense.
When a party obtains a transcript earlier than others, the deposition officer must notify all attending parties and, upon request, provide simultaneous access to avoid privileged or strategic timing advantages.Reporters must retain their stenographic notes for set minimum periods: eight years when no transcript is produced, and at least one year after a transcript is produced. The statute allows those notes to be stored on paper or electronic media so long as they can reliably produce a transcript during the retention window.
Separately, any party who records testimony by audio or video must promptly permit other parties to hear or view the recording and must furnish copies on payment of reasonable copying costs.On payment mechanics, the bill puts the onus on the requesting attorney or pro se party to timely pay deposition officers or their providers for transcripts and other deposition products, subject to narrow written-notice exceptions and existing attorney-client payment agreements. It also includes a procedural enforcement path: if a deposition officer gets a final judgment for unpaid services, the requesting attorney must provide an address for service used to effectuate collection under California enforcement provisions.
Finally, the bill ties the definition of “deposition product or service” to shorthand reporting as defined in the Business and Professions Code, anchoring coverage to licensed shorthand reporting services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Default transcription: If testimony is recorded stenographically, the bill requires a transcript unless the parties agree otherwise.
Who pays: The party who notices the deposition must bear the cost of the transcription unless a court orders a different allocation for good cause.
Retention timelines: Stenographic notes must be kept at least eight years if no transcript is produced, and at least one year after a transcript is produced; electronic storage is permitted if it allows reliable transcript production.
Official record: When a deposition is recorded both stenographically and by audio or video, the stenographic transcript is the official record for trial, hearings, and appeals.
Access and timing: If one party would receive a transcript or copy earlier than others, the deposition officer must notify all attending parties and, upon request, provide simultaneous copies; any party or deponent may obtain a copy at their own expense.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Default requirement to transcribe stenographic testimony
This provision flips the default from optional to mandatory for stenographic deposits: unless parties opt out, stenographic testimony must be transcribed. Practically, counsel who prefer to avoid transcription must negotiate that exclusion in advance. For reporters and vendors, this creates more predictable demand for transcripts but also requires clear fee proposals upfront so noticing counsel can budget.
Initial cost allocation to the noticing party with court discretion
The bill places initial payment responsibility on the party who noticed the deposition, subject to a court’s ability on motion to reallocate or share costs for good cause. That preserves judicial discretion to depart from the default when fairness or financial hardship warrants, but shifts the practical burden of advancing the expense to the noticing side pending any such motion.
Other parties and deponents can obtain copies at their expense
Even though the noticing party generally pays, the statute expressly allows any other party or the deponent to procure a transcript at that person’s own expense. That clarifies who may access the written record independent of cost allocation disputes and prevents the noticing party from monopolizing distribution by virtue of payment alone.
Notification and simultaneous access when transcripts are distributed unevenly
If a deposition officer receives a request that would make a transcript available to one party before others, the officer must notify all other attending parties immediately. Upon request, the officer must then provide the transcript to all parties at the same time. This is a practical fairness rule to prevent tactical advantage through early access to transcripts; it creates operational obligations for officers to track requests and timing.
Reporter retention requirements and acceptable media
Reporters must retain stenographic notes for at least eight years if no transcript exists, and for one year after producing a transcript. The statute permits either paper or electronic storage so long as it supports reliable transcript production. That dual option reflects modern practice but raises record-keeping responsibilities and potential costs for secure, recoverable storage solutions.
Access to audio/video recordings and payment for copies
Parties who record depositions by audio or video must allow other parties to hear or view the recording on request and must furnish copies upon payment of reasonable copying costs. The provision imposes promptness and cost-recovery limits but leaves 'reasonable cost' open to negotiation or later dispute, necessitating clear vendor billing practices.
Stenographic transcript controls when both media exist
When testimony is recorded both stenographically and by audio/video, the bill designates the stenographic transcript as the official record for trial and appeals. That removes ambiguity about which medium governs evidentiary questions and places emphasis on the accuracy and admissibility of the written transcript.
Payment mechanics, enforcement, and jurisdictional clarification
The requesting attorney or pro se requesting party must timely pay for transcripts and other deposition products, unless payment responsibility is otherwise established by law or written notice at time of request identifies a different payer. The subdivision preserves private attorney-party payment agreements, clarifies that Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. does not alter standards for personal jurisdiction over nonparties, and requires an address for service if a deposition officer obtains a final judgment for unpaid services—tying collection tools to established California enforcement statutes.
Definition of deposition product or service
The bill defines 'deposition product or service' to include any product or service that qualifies as shorthand reporting under Business and Professions Code section 8017, plus products derived from that shorthand reporting. That anchors coverage to licensed shorthand reporting activities and excludes services not captured by the B&P Code definition.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Trial and appellate counsel seeking a single authoritative record — the bill reduces disputes about which medium controls by making stenographic transcripts the official record when multiple recordings exist.
- Court reporters and shorthand-reporting vendors — the transcription default increases demand for transcripts and for retained reporter notes, creating steady revenue and clearer service expectations.
- Parties concerned about reliability of the record — uniform transcription and reporter retention periods enhance the ability to reconstruct testimony years later, which benefits those preparing appeals or enforcing judgments.
- Deponents and non-noticing parties who want access — the statute expressly allows them to obtain copies at their own expense and obligates officers to offer simultaneous access when distribution would otherwise be staggered.
Who Bears the Cost
- Noticing parties and their law firms — they must advance transcription costs by default and may face cash-flow implications, especially for large multi-day depositions.
- Small law firms and indigent litigants — the default payment rule shifts initial financial burden onto whichever side notices, which can disproportionately affect smaller or underfunded plaintiffs or defendants.
- Reporters and deposition officers — while they benefit from more work, they face longer retention obligations and attendant storage, security, and administrative costs for maintaining notes and electronic media.
- Courts and judges — will see more motions over 'good cause' cost shifting, disputes about 'reasonable' copying charges, and enforcement proceedings when payments are delinquent, increasing docket and decision-workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB2290 balances two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: creating a single, reliable official record and predictable reporter obligations versus minimizing upfront costs and access barriers for litigants. Making transcription the default and giving the stenographic transcript primacy improves evidentiary certainty but forces one side to shoulder immediate costs and generates operational burdens for reporters and courts.
The bill raises several implementation and tension points that courts and practitioners will have to resolve. 'Good cause' for shifting transcription costs is undetermined; courts will develop standards, and litigants will litigate which kinds of cases or parties justify reallocating costs. The requirement that deposition officers notify parties and provide simultaneous access creates a compliance burden: officers must track request timing in real time and vendors must have processes to produce and distribute copies immediately, which may be challenging in complex or remote depositions.
Retention windows are purposeful but imprecise: permitting electronic media aligns with modern practice, but raises questions about acceptable formats, encryption, chain-of-custody, and how to authenticate an electronic stenographic file years after the fact. The rule that stenographic transcripts are the official record elevates the role of reporters, but it could disadvantage parties who invested in high-quality audio/video systems and expected those recordings to be dispositive.
Finally, the payment enforcement provisions shift economic risk toward requesting attorneys by requiring addresses for collection and making them the default payors, but the statute leaves 'timely' payment and 'reasonable cost' undefined — both likely sources of dispute and motions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.