[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael D. Berman.]

In Greco v. Hon. Robert W. Lane, 2026 WL 2446747 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2026), the court held that there was no procedural defect in a request to use AI to record a deposition. Substantive questions were left open.

“Plaintiff served two Rule 30(b)(6) notices of deposition on Nye County. ECF No. 58 Exhibits A and B. Both notices (1) name Mark Gancarz as the person to testify on the County’s behalf, (2) request the production of documents, and (3) designate the recording method by stenographic means and/or video recording.”

Plaintiff moves to use the Mobvoi TicNote, an artificial-intelligence voice recorder, to maintain a secondary audio record of the depositions…. Rule 30(b)(3)(B) permits any party, with prior notice to the deponent and the other parties, to designate an additional method of recording the testimony. Plaintiff’s motion supplies the notice Rule 30(b)(3)(B) requires, so no procedural defect remains for this Court to resolve.

Because the depositions noticed in Exhibits A and B will not proceed on the current notices, the motion is moot. Should Plaintiff re-notice his 30(b)(6) deposition and designate this methos of recording, Defendants may file the appropriate motion to address any concerns they might have.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(3) states:

(3) Method of Recording.

(A) Method Stated in the Notice. The party who notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the court orders otherwise, testimony may be recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means. The noticing party bears the recording costs. Any party may arrange to transcribe a deposition.

(B) Additional Method. With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, any party may designate another method for recording the testimony in addition to that specified in the original notice. That party bears the expense of the additional record or transcript unless the court orders otherwise.

It is fairly easy to envision the same issue arising in, for example, a Rule 26(f) Conference of the Parties.

It will be interesting to see who bears the burden of persuasion to show that the specific AI tool is reliable. Has it been tested? Does it have a known error rate, for example? See Otter.ai “Transcript” Was Excluded From Consideration (Apr. 25, 2026); Felder: Part 1 of 4:  Court-Ordered Transcription of “Meet and Confer” Session (Aug. 13, 2024); Sometimes Discovery Disputes Do Not Bring Out the Best in Us – Part II (Jun. 20, 2024)(“courts have ordered that the parties record – by video or court reporter – their Local Rule 37.2 meet-and-confer sessions for the court’s review”).

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.