Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to CR 30 - Depositions Upon Oral Examination (in Word Format)
• No comments were submitted.

GR 9 COVER SHEET

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL RULES (CR)

CR 30 – DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION

A. Name of Proponent:

William D. Pickett, President, Washington State Bar Association

B. Spokesperson:

Jefferson Coulter

Chair of Court Rules and Procedures Committee

NW Justice Project

1702 W. Broadway Ave.

Spokane, WA 99201 (Phone: 509-324-9128)

          Staff Liaison/Contact:

          Nicole Gustine, Assistant General Counsel

          Washington State Bar Association (WSBA)

          1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 600

          Seattle, WA 98101-2539 (Phone: 206-727-8237)

C. Purpose:

The suggested amendment to Civil Rule (“CR”) 30 addresses the portion of the rule governing recording of depositions. This proposal recommends updating the language of CR 30(b)(8), which addresses the methods by which depositions are video recorded, to account for technological advances since the language was implemented. The proposed revisions aim to accomplish two changes:

(1) Remove all references to “video tapes” or “videotaping,” and replace them with the more generic term “video record” or “video recording,” and

(2) Address circumstances in which the original is stored in the cloud or on a remote server (as opposed to storing on a fixed medium, such as a video tape) and require information to be included in the certificate already required to be provided by videographers about how the video recording of the deposition will be stored and preserved.

These changes are not substantive, but necessary to update the rule to reflect technology and how litigants are using video recordings and storing such recordings.

The proposed revisions were circulated widely to the Washington State Bar Association’s (WSBA) list of stakeholders, including representatives from the Supreme Court, the three Courts of Appeal, the Superior Court Judges Association, and the District and Municipal Court Judges Association; specialty bars (the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers, Washington Association for Justice, Northwest Justice Project, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington Appellate Lawyers Associations, International Association of Defense Counsel, Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys, Public Defenders Association, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Columbia Legal, and section leaders for the WSBA’s sections); and local and minority bar associations. In addition, input was sought from several court reporting and videographer firms.

The proponent of the rule presented the rule to the committee and supported minor revisions proposed by the committee to his original proposal.

The District and Municipal Court Judges Association commented to express its nonopposition to the rule. The Committee also received a written comment from Prolumina, a videographer firm. No other comments were received.

While the first of the changes elicited broad support, Prolumina expressed opposition to the additional language required to be added to the certification about how and where the depositions were to be stored and how they would be preserved. It viewed the additional language as an additional requirement.

The committee discussed this and believed it was a minor imposition. While this proposal would require updating the certification form, the new language does not add substantive requirements not already required by the rule’s existing language. See CR 30(b)(8)(H) (“The custodian shall store it under conditions that will protect it against loss or destruction or tampering, and shall preserve as far as practicable the quality of the tape and the technical integrity of the testimony and images it contains.”). Once the videographer certification forms are updated with the new language, the forms could then be used for all future video depositions, much like the certification forms now are handled.

After hearing the feedback and discussing the rule, including the change to the certification form, the committee voted to adopt the suggested changes.

D. Hearing: A hearing is not requested.

E. Expedited Consideration: Expedited consideration is not requested.